You should hear what he said about Catherine Ashton when she got installed as foreign affairs representative - beautifully direct and to the point cutting her down.
This is a person who is only interested in one thing 'Himself' This is the man who stood down as leader of the UKIP in 2009 so that he could contest John Bercow (leader of the house of commons) in the 2010 general election. After failing dismally in this attempt,he was then able to put himself forward once again as canditate for the leadership of the party due to the fact that the then current leader suddenly resigned (strange). This is the man who openly bragged at a meeting (and was overheard by the press) that in five years he had made £1m in expenses that in conjunction with his £64k a year salary explains his wish to be an MEP again. The man is a laughing stock amongst most serious politicians in the UK and is an out and out oaf.
The ones who are only interested in themselves are the ones pretending there are no problems and everything is fine.
The EU has become a wealth eating, debt shitting child crying for her next meal. For over a decade now, their answer to broken social programs was more social spending, while American taxpayers shouldered the bulk of their defense expenses--all they have is social spending!
And Euro socialism has become our model in America!?!
Only an idiot, or a self-interested fool politician would pretend the EU has a future. I hope the Brits listen. I hope the Germans act decisively. Neither one of them deserves what is coming. The French on the other hand...
The only part of my post that was my opinion was the last sentence. The rest of the post is stated fact,it is obvious that you have little knowledge of Nigel Farage apart from what he is spouting on the video. What you don't understand is that what Farage says and what he does are two completly different things.
Well, Farage has always been a Eurosceptic. So there's no surprise that he's ranting about the union. About stability: The Euro has brought us price stability and has been in fact more stable than the old D-Mark. Also it has neither brought chaos nor misery for millions. Currently export oriented countries like Germany even benefit from the Euro's devaluation and is one of the main reasons for our recovery from the financial crisis. About the fiscal union: The lack of a fiscal union was one of the reasons for the Euro crisis (another aspect is the disastrous financial and economic policies of some of the states concerned, espc. Greece). Back then in 2002 it was even said that it was just a matter of time until a fiscal union comprising the Eurozone would be created and that for the monetary union to succeed it was necessary that all states cooperate and coordinate on fiscal and economic policies. Unfortunately the European governments just went on business as usual and just like with the European Constitution managed to screw everything up. Also there's no hidden agenda the idea of an "ever closer union" was always part of the European Union and its predecessors.
But actually I support UKIP in its struggle for a referendum on EU membership. The majority of the British voters are against membership and they should be free to leave.
All that said, I also think that the EU needs reform badly, most importantly at the EU level. The member states' governments (there's a difference between sovereign - the people - and government) have too much power (executive and legislative) compared to the European Commission and especially the European Parliament.
And yes, I am a Eurofederalist. And no, that doesn't make me a "socialist". Actually I'm a center capitalist. Socialism requires the socialization of all means of production. And just to get your terms right, state intervention is usually directed at a market economy. That's why capitalistic command economies (see Fascist Italy's economy) and socialist market ecnomies (see the PRC) exist. (I'm not anonymous, just for the record.)
This guy is a snake, UKIP is in the same league as the BNP, borderline racist, with facist leanings. Difference is they have had slightly more photogenic leaders first with Robert Kilroy Silk and now Nigel Faraage. Eurosceptism is their front for much worse things they dont advertise, which is why they dont get elected into UK office. If it was just against the EU lots of votes would come their way, but the other things put people off.
wow, i wonder how my views would be received if i were in Europe.
according to the UKIP website they believe in managed immigration, not illegal immigration...they believe in withdrawal from the EU, they believe in a strong national defense, lower taxes, independence from the state...
what makes him this boogey-man that has Annonymous, Ron and Franks so nervous?
Drake, i agree but not only for our sake but for the sake of Europe.
they don't or won't acknowledge how much we've been subsidizing their defense.....they refuse to properly fund their own and the constant criticism by some is annoying.
i realize that view are different but i know i speak for a number of my associates when it comes to the American view of Europe.
i trust that Franks, Ron, Marcase, ThinkDefence and others speak for the European view (perhaps alot more diplomatically)
but the challenge remains. give me news articles that support your claims about Nigel guys. i'd love to read them.
Sol there is very little I can say or show you outright to tell you the insidious and ridiculous nature of UKIP. Think Defense might do a better job, but really the only way I can think of is to give you an American equivalent.
Nigel Faraage is in private views not much different from Strom Thurmond. The only difference is that he is much more insidious in the way he presents himself, much like his predecessor Silk was.
News articles will be hard to find to show you because the mainstream and even conservative right wing establishment in the UK treats him and his party as basically a joke and an embarrassment.
If they were in Chamberlain's place in 1936 make no mistake the Euroskepticism would be out the window and they would have signed an alliance with Hitler.
Everything on their website is code worded nonsense,
Managed Immigration in their spoken rhetoric becomes White English Speaking Christians only.
Withdrawal from the EU only because of the EU includes the Romanians and Polish whom they despise.
Strong National Defense is a joke, they would invade China and France and nuke Argentina if given half a chance.
Lower Taxes well basically they will remove the Welfare State, which sounds good in theory but their plan would involve leaving most of the population in an Orwellian death match for resources.
Independence from the State translates to basic Anarchic removal of Govt, not in a Ron Paul way, more in a Mad Max way.
In any case here is a taste (from the Right Wing Press no less)
Oh if you enjoy comedy you might want to look on Youtube for episodes of HIGNFY where both Robert Kilroy Silk and Nigel Faraage have made quite comical appearances.
Ron, what wrong with invading France, its been the national sport for hundreds of years!
On a serious note, I think our Mr Farage is a bit of a curates egg, he talks a lot of sense, sometimes, he is a great orator, sometimes. I would say he is the natural counterpoint to European federalism which generally speaking doesnt get talked about in the UK, despite it being the normal thing in most of Europe. Most people in the UK like Europe, like the sensible aspects of easier cross border trade but generally speaking do not like the idea of a nation state of Europe. Can you have one without the other is the key question.
A bit like the George Galloway, Nigel Farage is a great public speaker. You might not like what he says but for entertainment value for money, unbeatable.
As for defence, if you want a bit of background on UKIP's election manifesto
Sol, I would add that I tend to agree that Europe has for a long time, avoiding paying for defence by relying on the US taxpayer with the exception of the UK and France, who despite what you might think, make a big contribution
the UK has been remarkably steadfast. the only issues that have arisen deal with aspects of how to properly conduct a COIN operation.
France has always acted in its own best interests at the expense of everyone else. another reason why i hate seeing the UK rotate into its sphere of influence on military matters.
the Netherlands has been punching above its weight as has Romania, and a couple of other nations that escape my memory.
the big 200 pound gorilla in the room is Germany. its becoming an exclusive economic force with little in the way of military spending.
i'll look up how much they spend of their GDP on defense but i bet its below NATO wishes.
Germany spends a fraction, there is little public appetite in the country for any more and frankly their neighbors (France in pole position) will never allow them to spend any more.
History is always the biggest enemy in Europe, rational discourse and political consensus usually goes out the window when talk turns to the German military. Unfortunate, especially given the fact that they possess one of the finest military's in the world, hamstrung by politics...
On UKIP's Defense Policy, yes there is a lot in there to agree on, but problem is the baggage that comes along. The KKK used to have good things to say about the role of religion in society once upon a time, shame about the rest of their manifesto...
Are we talking about defence or security? During the Cold War all Western European states were paying a significant amount of their GDP on defence. And the US defence contribution wasn't an entirely self-less effort, we would have been the nuclear battlefield and not the US. I don't want to sound ungrateful and especially the US Navy, space and other highly specialised assets were critical for the defence of Europe, but they were also critical for the defence of the US.
However for the past twenty years there has been no military threat to Europe, which is now united. And while it is possible that new threats might arise, they won't just pop up tomorrow. Even Russia, the strongest military power on Europe's periphery, needs years to build up a military that can wage a peer-vs-peer offensive war. There's no need for thousands of fighter aircraft or tanks, millions of troops, ....
Now regarding security. You must consider that except France and Britain most European countries didn't get involved with armed interventions in Africa or other parts of the world for decades (since the end of the colonial wars), even though all contributed to various UN peacekeeping forces. Germany first deployed armed troops in the 90s and before that the government had only used its intelligence service to get what they wanted, which usually meant bribing foreign government officials and businessmen. In the 90s everybody turned their armies into heavily mechanised peacekeeping forces. For the last ten years almost every state in Europe was involved with the Afghan War and now everybody seems to be on the COIN trip, and even though I'm one of the few people in Germany who are actually in favor of contributing to ISAF, I must say that other regions are far more important and that direct military involvement isn't always the best solution (e.g. Germany is providing a lot of support - training, air transport, communications - to AU troops instead of sending its own peacekeepers).
Also the US isn't subsidizing Europe's defence, you're using our peaceful little continent as a staging area for your military operations in Africa and the Middle East.^^ Or would you say that your subsidizing the defence of Japan or South Korea, even though you plan to use your bases in these countries to contain the PRC?
the best thing to know when you attend a party is to know when to leave.
i'm in the camp of pulling US troops out of countries where our stay is controversial or unwanted...that includes Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Germany and the UK.
the US is a natural maritime nation and we don't do empires well. time to retreat to fortress America (not to say that we'll disengage from world affairs, just saying that our military encampments will be fewer...much fewer)
as far as imperial nations or rather former imperialist...don't forget the holdings that the Netherlands have....don't forget French holdings in S. America...
as far as subsidizing the defense of Japan and S. Korea? yes we are. both nations are highly industrialized and can provide their own defense. we would remain strong allies but only when called.
Sol, I may not sound like it but I have always been a staunch supporter of the US miltary,but not neccessarily US government policy. I don't know if in your time in the military you were ever stationed in the UK,but in my experience your presence here was never controversial or unwanted except for the fringe elements like 'Ban the Bomb' or the so called 'Peace camps' that were set up by a certain type of female outside of US nuclear bases. The general public of the UK fully accepted and welcomed your presence in our country. Your remark in regards to retreating to fortress America is a mistake,isolationism does not work and for America to play its part on the world stage it would a disaster. Much has been said of the USA subsidising Europe and carrying to large a part of its defence burden and in some respects your are right. May I point out though,that after WWII and well into the 1950's which was a golden age for the American public,the British were still living in a sad grey bancrupt country.Even food was still rationed well into the 1950's and even sweets (candy) for the kids was restricted. After the war American money was poured into the former Enemy (Germany) throught the Marshal plan in order to create a buffer between the USSR and Europe. This meant that our former enemise city's and enconomies were rebuilt whilst the UK was left to languish. Hence the German miracle of industrialisation,which was paid for by the USA. One last point I would like to make is this,we in the UK did NOT beg,borrow or steal as is like to be made out by certain commentators. It took the UK 60yrs to pay off our national debt which was incurred by obtaining aid from the USA during the war,but we did it. Whilst the US was pouring money into erstwhile enemies the UK was pouring money out of its already empty coffers. We do keep our word even today!!
Sol, on the COIN thing, the UK has conducted probably the only 2 COIN conflicts that have ever resulted in a lasting peace, Northern Ireland and Malaya. So we do know exactly how to conduct a campaign amongst the people.
Where we went wrong in Iraq was down to 3 things. Arrogance, believing our own bullshit, not learning/adapting the sound principles developed over 30-50 years, not implementing those same sound principle by penny pinching, always thinking about the bare minimum we could get away with
Not wanting to be prickly over this at all but UK forces had to teach US forces the basics such as Vehicle Check Point etc.
Where the US did the exact right thing whilst we were still lording it over you with our soft hat bullshit was doing the same three things we did not.
You had some humility, learned fast, applied enough intellectual energy to adapt proven principles to the prevailing conditions and resourced the conflict requirements to the hilt.
May hat is definitely doffed to US forces in this area and I think the knocking down a peg or two that we have endured will be good for us in the long term.
I don't want to be too negative on the UK but we always have to recognise no group in any nation will ever be perfect or do things right all the time.
If anything, we should heed the lesson of humility.
As for the whole Europe thing, whatever the facts about the Cold War, Elvis has left the building and we all need to think about our collective security needs for the next 50 years because when all said and done, the western nations all share many common needs
You should hear what he said about Catherine Ashton when she got installed as foreign affairs representative - beautifully direct and to the point cutting her down.
ReplyDeleteThis is a person who is only interested in one thing 'Himself'
ReplyDeleteThis is the man who stood down as leader of the UKIP in 2009 so that he could contest John Bercow (leader of the house of commons) in the 2010 general election.
After failing dismally in this attempt,he was then able to put himself forward once again as canditate for the leadership of the party due to the fact that the then current leader suddenly resigned (strange).
This is the man who openly bragged at a meeting (and was overheard by the press) that in five years he had made £1m in expenses that in conjunction with his £64k a year salary explains his wish to be an MEP again.
The man is a laughing stock amongst most serious politicians in the UK and is an out and out oaf.
your opinion.
ReplyDeletei disagree.
The ones who are only interested in themselves are the ones pretending there are no problems and everything is fine.
ReplyDeleteThe EU has become a wealth eating, debt shitting child crying for her next meal. For over a decade now, their answer to broken social programs was more social spending, while American taxpayers shouldered the bulk of their defense expenses--all they have is social spending!
And Euro socialism has become our model in America!?!
Only an idiot, or a self-interested fool politician would pretend the EU has a future. I hope the Brits listen. I hope the Germans act decisively. Neither one of them deserves what is coming. The French on the other hand...
The only part of my post that was my opinion was the last sentence.
ReplyDeleteThe rest of the post is stated fact,it is obvious that you have little knowledge of Nigel Farage apart from what he is spouting on the video.
What you don't understand is that what Farage says and what he does are two completly different things.
well then point me to a news story that supports your statement.
ReplyDeletebut you're easy to read...you're into the "Union"...you probably have socialist leanings and you like what you're seeing.
if i'm wrong then awesome, just show me something.
Well, Farage has always been a Eurosceptic. So there's no surprise that he's ranting about the union.
ReplyDeleteAbout stability: The Euro has brought us price stability and has been in fact more stable than the old D-Mark. Also it has neither brought chaos nor misery for millions. Currently export oriented countries like Germany even benefit from the Euro's devaluation and is one of the main reasons for our recovery from the financial crisis.
About the fiscal union: The lack of a fiscal union was one of the reasons for the Euro crisis (another aspect is the disastrous financial and economic policies of some of the states concerned, espc. Greece). Back then in 2002 it was even said that it was just a matter of time until a fiscal union comprising the Eurozone would be created and that for the monetary union to succeed it was necessary that all states cooperate and coordinate on fiscal and economic policies. Unfortunately the European governments just went on business as usual and just like with the European Constitution managed to screw everything up. Also there's no hidden agenda the idea of an "ever closer union" was always part of the European Union and its predecessors.
But actually I support UKIP in its struggle for a referendum on EU membership. The majority of the British voters are against membership and they should be free to leave.
All that said, I also think that the EU needs reform badly, most importantly at the EU level. The member states' governments (there's a difference between sovereign - the people - and government) have too much power (executive and legislative) compared to the European Commission and especially the European Parliament.
And yes, I am a Eurofederalist. And no, that doesn't make me a "socialist". Actually I'm a center capitalist. Socialism requires the socialization of all means of production. And just to get your terms right, state intervention is usually directed at a market economy. That's why capitalistic command economies (see Fascist Italy's economy) and socialist market ecnomies (see the PRC) exist.
(I'm not anonymous, just for the record.)
This guy is a snake, UKIP is in the same league as the BNP, borderline racist, with facist leanings. Difference is they have had slightly more photogenic leaders first with Robert Kilroy Silk and now Nigel Faraage. Eurosceptism is their front for much worse things they dont advertise, which is why they dont get elected into UK office. If it was just against the EU lots of votes would come their way, but the other things put people off.
ReplyDeletewow, i wonder how my views would be received if i were in Europe.
ReplyDeleteaccording to the UKIP website they believe in managed immigration, not illegal immigration...they believe in withdrawal from the EU, they believe in a strong national defense, lower taxes, independence from the state...
what makes him this boogey-man that has Annonymous, Ron and Franks so nervous?
That's Europe for yah. We need to pull the majority of our troops off the continent.
ReplyDeleteDrake, i agree but not only for our sake but for the sake of Europe.
ReplyDeletethey don't or won't acknowledge how much we've been subsidizing their defense.....they refuse to properly fund their own and the constant criticism by some is annoying.
i realize that view are different but i know i speak for a number of my associates when it comes to the American view of Europe.
i trust that Franks, Ron, Marcase, ThinkDefence and others speak for the European view (perhaps alot more diplomatically)
but the challenge remains. give me news articles that support your claims about Nigel guys. i'd love to read them.
Sol there is very little I can say or show you outright to tell you the insidious and ridiculous nature of UKIP. Think Defense might do a better job, but really the only way I can think of is to give you an American equivalent.
ReplyDeleteNigel Faraage is in private views not much different from Strom Thurmond. The only difference is that he is much more insidious in the way he presents himself, much like his predecessor Silk was.
News articles will be hard to find to show you because the mainstream and even conservative right wing establishment in the UK treats him and his party as basically a joke and an embarrassment.
If they were in Chamberlain's place in 1936 make no mistake the Euroskepticism would be out the window and they would have signed an alliance with Hitler.
Everything on their website is code worded nonsense,
Managed Immigration in their spoken rhetoric becomes White English Speaking Christians only.
Withdrawal from the EU only because of the EU includes the Romanians and Polish whom they despise.
Strong National Defense is a joke, they would invade China and France and nuke Argentina if given half a chance.
Lower Taxes well basically they will remove the Welfare State, which sounds good in theory but their plan would involve leaving most of the population in an Orwellian death match for resources.
Independence from the State translates to basic Anarchic removal of Govt, not in a Ron Paul way, more in a Mad Max way.
In any case here is a taste (from the Right Wing Press no less)
First couple of paragraphs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8227773/David-Cameron-must-face-the-challenge-of-Islamisation.html
Oh if you enjoy comedy you might want to look on Youtube for episodes of HIGNFY where both Robert Kilroy Silk and Nigel Faraage have made quite comical appearances.
Ron, what wrong with invading France, its been the national sport for hundreds of years!
ReplyDeleteOn a serious note, I think our Mr Farage is a bit of a curates egg, he talks a lot of sense, sometimes, he is a great orator, sometimes. I would say he is the natural counterpoint to European federalism which generally speaking doesnt get talked about in the UK, despite it being the normal thing in most of Europe. Most people in the UK like Europe, like the sensible aspects of easier cross border trade but generally speaking do not like the idea of a nation state of Europe. Can you have one without the other is the key question.
A bit like the George Galloway, Nigel Farage is a great public speaker. You might not like what he says but for entertainment value for money, unbeatable.
As for defence, if you want a bit of background on UKIP's election manifesto
http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1453-defence-ukip-policy
I have to say there is a lot in there I could agree to
Sol, I would add that I tend to agree that Europe has for a long time, avoiding paying for defence by relying on the US taxpayer with the exception of the UK and France, who despite what you might think, make a big contribution
ReplyDeleteno argument their ThinkDefence.
ReplyDeletethe UK has been remarkably steadfast. the only issues that have arisen deal with aspects of how to properly conduct a COIN operation.
France has always acted in its own best interests at the expense of everyone else. another reason why i hate seeing the UK rotate into its sphere of influence on military matters.
the Netherlands has been punching above its weight as has Romania, and a couple of other nations that escape my memory.
the big 200 pound gorilla in the room is Germany. its becoming an exclusive economic force with little in the way of military spending.
i'll look up how much they spend of their GDP on defense but i bet its below NATO wishes.
Germany spends a fraction, there is little public appetite in the country for any more and frankly their neighbors (France in pole position) will never allow them to spend any more.
ReplyDeleteHistory is always the biggest enemy in Europe, rational discourse and political consensus usually goes out the window when talk turns to the German military. Unfortunate, especially given the fact that they possess one of the finest military's in the world, hamstrung by politics...
On UKIP's Defense Policy, yes there is a lot in there to agree on, but problem is the baggage that comes along. The KKK used to have good things to say about the role of religion in society once upon a time, shame about the rest of their manifesto...
Are we talking about defence or security? During the Cold War all Western European states were paying a significant amount of their GDP on defence. And the US defence contribution wasn't an entirely self-less effort, we would have been the nuclear battlefield and not the US. I don't want to sound ungrateful and especially the US Navy, space and other highly specialised assets were critical for the defence of Europe, but they were also critical for the defence of the US.
ReplyDeleteHowever for the past twenty years there has been no military threat to Europe, which is now united. And while it is possible that new threats might arise, they won't just pop up tomorrow. Even Russia, the strongest military power on Europe's periphery, needs years to build up a military that can wage a peer-vs-peer offensive war. There's no need for thousands of fighter aircraft or tanks, millions of troops, ....
Now regarding security. You must consider that except France and Britain most European countries didn't get involved with armed interventions in Africa or other parts of the world for decades (since the end of the colonial wars), even though all contributed to various UN peacekeeping forces. Germany first deployed armed troops in the 90s and before that the government had only used its intelligence service to get what they wanted, which usually meant bribing foreign government officials and businessmen. In the 90s everybody turned their armies into heavily mechanised peacekeeping forces. For the last ten years almost every state in Europe was involved with the Afghan War and now everybody seems to be on the COIN trip, and even though I'm one of the few people in Germany who are actually in favor of contributing to ISAF, I must say that other regions are far more important and that direct military involvement isn't always the best solution (e.g. Germany is providing a lot of support - training, air transport, communications - to AU troops instead of sending its own peacekeepers).
Also the US isn't subsidizing Europe's defence, you're using our peaceful little continent as a staging area for your military operations in Africa and the Middle East.^^ Or would you say that your subsidizing the defence of Japan or South Korea, even though you plan to use your bases in these countries to contain the PRC?
hey Franks,
ReplyDeletethe best thing to know when you attend a party is to know when to leave.
i'm in the camp of pulling US troops out of countries where our stay is controversial or unwanted...that includes Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Germany and the UK.
the US is a natural maritime nation and we don't do empires well. time to retreat to fortress America (not to say that we'll disengage from world affairs, just saying that our military encampments will be fewer...much fewer)
as far as imperial nations or rather former imperialist...don't forget the holdings that the Netherlands have....don't forget French holdings in S. America...
as far as subsidizing the defense of Japan and S. Korea? yes we are. both nations are highly industrialized and can provide their own defense. we would remain strong allies but only when called.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteI may not sound like it but I have always been a staunch supporter of the US miltary,but not neccessarily US government policy.
I don't know if in your time in the military you were ever stationed in the UK,but in my experience your presence here was never controversial or unwanted except for the fringe elements like 'Ban the Bomb' or the so called 'Peace camps' that were set up by a certain type of female outside of US nuclear bases.
The general public of the UK fully accepted and welcomed your presence in our country.
Your remark in regards to retreating to fortress America is a mistake,isolationism does not work and for America to play its part on the world stage it would a disaster.
Much has been said of the USA subsidising Europe and carrying to large a part of its defence burden and in some respects your are right.
May I point out though,that after WWII and well into the 1950's which was a golden age for the American public,the British were still living in a sad grey bancrupt country.Even food was still rationed well into the 1950's and even sweets (candy) for the kids was restricted.
After the war American money was poured into the former Enemy (Germany) throught the Marshal plan in order to create a buffer between the USSR and Europe.
This meant that our former enemise city's and enconomies were rebuilt whilst the UK was left to languish.
Hence the German miracle of industrialisation,which was paid for by the USA.
One last point I would like to make is this,we in the UK did NOT beg,borrow or steal as is like to be made out by certain commentators.
It took the UK 60yrs to pay off our national debt which was incurred by obtaining aid from the USA during the war,but we did it.
Whilst the US was pouring money into erstwhile enemies the UK was pouring money out of its already empty coffers.
We do keep our word even today!!
Well said Michael.
ReplyDeleteSol, on the COIN thing, the UK has conducted probably the only 2 COIN conflicts that have ever resulted in a lasting peace, Northern Ireland and Malaya. So we do know exactly how to conduct a campaign amongst the people.
Where we went wrong in Iraq was down to 3 things. Arrogance, believing our own bullshit, not learning/adapting the sound principles developed over 30-50 years, not implementing those same sound principle by penny pinching, always thinking about the bare minimum we could get away with
Not wanting to be prickly over this at all but UK forces had to teach US forces the basics such as Vehicle Check Point etc.
Where the US did the exact right thing whilst we were still lording it over you with our soft hat bullshit was doing the same three things we did not.
You had some humility, learned fast, applied enough intellectual energy to adapt proven principles to the prevailing conditions and resourced the conflict requirements to the hilt.
May hat is definitely doffed to US forces in this area and I think the knocking down a peg or two that we have endured will be good for us in the long term.
I don't want to be too negative on the UK but we always have to recognise no group in any nation will ever be perfect or do things right all the time.
If anything, we should heed the lesson of humility.
As for the whole Europe thing, whatever the facts about the Cold War, Elvis has left the building and we all need to think about our collective security needs for the next 50 years because when all said and done, the western nations all share many common needs