France wants partnership with Britain.

[:Vampiress:]

Gordon Brown has announced a series of measures to deepen and strengthen Britain's ties with France saying he wanted an "Entente Formidable".
The two countries will hold regular summits and step up cooperation on immigration, defence and the economy.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy also hailed a new era of friendship - but said Britain still needed to play a fuller role in the EU.
The two leaders are holding talks at Arsenal's football ground in London.
Speaking at a joint news conference, Mr Brown said Britain and France shared the same vision for the future of Europe.
"Our two countries are at the heart of what we want to be an outward looking and globally focussed Europe.
"We both favour a strong relationship with our American partners. We agree that only by working together can we confront the challenges we face from terrorism, from climate change, poverty, disease and failed states."
He also complimented Britian and praised them for WW2.

Now i have to say anyone who can lick someone's backside like the French president did has to have a ulterior motive.
Maybe it's that France wants to be UN leader and control the UN army and need UK alongside to do it?
Does anyone else think it's fishy he decided to secure ties now?

[Liam Hannan]

Yes. But I'm happy to see us working together with France rather than whinging about them for a change - so I'm willing to go with it.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Until France gets a president who's wife isn't naked on the internet, we cannot trust them.

[Liam Hannan]

if you've got it, flaunt it ;)

thankfully, the queen ain't got it. :P

[Hamsterwaffle]

But its good to see the French finally being a bit grateful for us saving them in WW2.

[Matt. P]

I think its a good thing to become closer to other countries rather than being dependent of the USA.

And let's not forget the millions of Free French and resistance (including the de gualles and communists) forces that fought too.

[Liam Hannan]

But its good to see the French finally being a bit grateful for us saving them in WW2.

Us saving them?

Nae danger. Germany would have smashed us into tiny pieces if we hadn't had the lend lease policy. the USA saved our backside and we should remember that one.

(plus, hitler made some stupid mistakes. If goering had kept on with the battle of britain for another month we would have lost. If he'd waited for the development of rockets before trying sealion or barbarossa we'd have been outmatched.)

[Hamsterwaffle]

I think its a good thing to become closer to other countries rather than being dependent of the USA.
Yes but its important not to be dependent on Europe. We should focus on our relations with the US, Europe and the Commonwealth while making sure we are dependent on non of them.

[Conzales]

Until France gets a president who's wife isn't naked on the internet, we cannot trust them.

Thats called transparency :D

[Matt. P]

Yes, we should have a healthy spread of allies, including developing countries which will one day grow into more powerful countries who owe us, even though they not seem that powerful now (i.e. India, Brazil, Turkey, RSA, UAE).

And (for Hamster's benefit), this is the kind of policy China's doing. You don't want to be beaten, to you?

[Hamsterwaffle]

I agree, we should invest in and build relations with developing countries (as long as they are democratic) in order to provide a future in which Britain stays influential. We should also ensure that while we build relations we do not endanger Britain's sovereignty over Britain. (yes I am talking about you Brussels)

[Liam Hannan]

Away - a european superstate is the best way to go economically.

It's the only way we will ever rival the USA or China...

[Hamsterwaffle]

But what's the point of being part of a superstate in which our voice is muffled by 26 others? If we become part of an EU superstate we will have less power than we have now. We are the 6th richest country in the world and it would be foolish to throw that away. By focusing on influencing developing countries we will secure a future on the world stage for Britain without resorting to vassalage to Europe.

[Liam Hannan]

Or we could join in what is potentially the world's biggest melting pot and become the single richest country in the world. We could help and be helped by those we share a geography and history with.

[Hamsterwaffle]

If we formed an EU style organisation with the UKUSA community then we would be richer than the EU, we would have more landmass and we would have more common history.

[Liam Hannan]

But there's no movement or mechanism to do that.

On top of which, America's social history and policy is sketchy to put it lightly.
Backed by Rupert Murdoch.

Europe (where the history comes from) the birthplace of so many of the worlds highest ideals - where human rights are sanctimonious and where people are (by and large) ut before profit. Backed by the Eurocrats - oposed by the xenophobes.

[Hamsterwaffle]

You forget that in a EU style UKUSA community it wouldn't be dominated by the US as there would be 4 other countries in it. I think we share a lot more recent history with the countries of New Zealand, Australia and Canada, countries that we made, than France or Spain who we have spent centuries fighting.

[Liam Hannan]

First off - the USA as a superpower would automatically dominate any partnership, regardless of how hard they try not to.

Secondly, this isn't about the past 9where you seem to spend a lot of time) - it's about the future (which is what I, and most of the young people i represent, are really interested in) Where are we going to go and how will it make our lives better?

[Hamsterwaffle]

If Britain's future interests are to be protected, we need allies who do not want to tell us how to run our country.

[Liam Hannan]

The US corporations are already doing that.

And it wouldnt' be our country if it was part of a superstate. It would be part of one larger country that we shared with everyone else too.

(yet again, hopefully under a federal system)

[Hamsterwaffle]

If the UKUSA community isn't a good basis for a super state, then what about the commonwealth of nations? It would have the largest population, the largest landmass and would have significant territories on all 7 continents.

[Liam Hannan]

too far dispersed - and smacks of empire.

Those territories all wanted independence and there is no real movement to strengthen the commonwealth as a political union. (It seems to work quite well as an affiliation)

[Hamsterwaffle]

I would rather it smacks of the British Empire than of what Nazi Germany and Napoleons French Empire were planning to become. Also while there may be great distance between the countries of the commonwealth, this could be an advantage. We would completely surround Zimbabwe and be able to force it to stop its dictatorship as well as being able to help the people of the country once it becomes a democracy. It could basically be one state in which each individual state runs its own business but contributes to the defence and foreign policy (which could be voted on in a united parliament for the superstate). If that were the case then I would actually support Scotland being its own state within the state as its impact would be minimal.

[Liam Hannan]

You sure know how to sweet talk a wee teuchter boy.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Okay liam if we are going to have a reasonable conversation you need to start talking English.

[Steven_Jones_-_Sheffield]

The funny thing is, the 100 year war technically never ended between us so we're still at war. :D

Steven Jones

[Liam Hannan]

Okay liam if we are going to have a reasonable conversation you need to start talking English.

don't pop a vein. That wasn't a shot at you.

All I was getting at was that you put across a good argument and threw in something you knew would placate me.
(even if you did slag off Bonaparte, who, for the record, rocks!)

[Hamsterwaffle]

So Britain has been part of the longest and shortest wars ever? I doubt any war will beat the Anglo-Zanzibar war:38mins or the 100 years war which is still going on.

[Hamsterwaffle]

However cool Nap was, Wellington was much cooler. E.g. The boots, beating Nap multiple times, not flinching when someone next to him lost his leg to a cannonball and having more pubs named after him than anyone else.

[Steven_Jones_-_Sheffield]

Indeed, we only signed a peace treaty with the French.

Steven Jones

[Hamsterwaffle]

But back the matter in hand, would you support the idea of a united commonwealth if Scotland was given independence within the united commonwealth liam?

[Liam Hannan]

Wellington beat Napoleon once...

Waterloo was the first time they had ever faced each other in battle - and up until that point Napoleon was still convinced Wellesley was a "sepoy general".

And by Wellington's own account, Waterloo was a "damn near run thing".

(there should have been a rematch)

having said that, beef wellington is awesome.

[Liam Hannan]

But back the matter in hand, would you support the idea of a united commonwealth if Scotland was given independence within the united commonwealth liam?

I'd seriously consider it.

[Hamsterwaffle]

I'm sure they fought each other in the peninsular war.

[Liam Hannan]

nah, that was Napoleon's Marshalls.
how sad is it I can't even remember any of their names?

The Peninsular war was a big deal to us because we were there.
Napoleon never considered it more than a sideshow, he was away taking on Austria, Russia, Prussia etc.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Napoleon was an example of Europe copying us again. We chop our kings head off, try to do a republic then turn into a facist dictatorship that invades its neighbours . Then a few centuries later they do it.

[Steven_Jones_-_Sheffield]

Aren't we getting a bit off the mark here? Lol

Steven Jones

[Hamsterwaffle]

Very much so, but its late and this is about the only time me and Liam haven't been at each others throats.

[Steven_Jones_-_Sheffield]

Yeah, I've noticed that.

Steven Jones

[:Vampiress:]

A superstate would never work. For one no country trusts each other (and rightly so). People will start becoming greedy e.g money, land. We will be even more divided than before with the EU, because noone would want o give up power, so we'll be a crappy superpower.
Although I do agree we need to do something to match China and America.
But the super-state idea is not going to work, unless people let go of History, and that is impossible as history is what has shaped today.

[Hamsterwaffle]

I doubt we are ever going to be able to match the USA again. And on the super state point I was only suggesting that the countries would pool sovereignty on defence and foreign relations, have a common market and synchronised tariffs on foreign goods. Which is less than the EU currently does. Also no country would be forced into it and referendums would be required for entry. But at this stage its only a suggestion and there are other ways we could improve our international standing.

[:Vampiress:]

We should fix the divide between the EU first before we look to make a closer alliance. You have to lay bricks to make a wall.

[Steven_Jones_-_Sheffield]

Laying P**cks eh? I like your thinking ;)

Hehe, You're right though, why France anyway? We've been at war with them loads of times...infact we still are (100 year war never ended; only a peace treaty signed).

Steven Jones

[Hamsterwaffle]

We should also ensure that in any alliance/superstate/agreement we are in, Britain's sovereignity is protected.

[:Vampiress:]

Hmm they should really fix that shouldn't they. To think we are having a war half the country doesn't know about.
It would be funny if it all just kicked off again.
French P: That iz it ve declare war.
Gordon: We never stopped having a war you idiot.
*pause*
French P: Vell we resume ze war!

[Steven_Jones_-_Sheffield]

Haha!

No racist stereotypes there I see. :cool:

Steven Jones

[:Vampiress:]

Hey, I was trying to catch the accent. Blame it on television!

[Steven_Jones_-_Sheffield]

Like everything else in the world; Blame it on television!

Homelessness - Blame it on television

Disease - Blame it on television

World Hun- - Television!

Steven Jones

[:Vampiress:]

Homelessness - Government and partly the people who can't go to a housing esate or maybe book a hostel before running away.

Disease - Mice, rats, fleas and for sexual ones I think we all know that one.

World Hunger - People who are so busy spending money on invading people and buy super-cool weps you don't really need.

I love my telly. It gives me Family Guy and American Dad and the occasional documentary. I'd die of boredom without it.

[Steven_Jones_-_Sheffield]

Family Guy <3

I must have seen every episode. :)

Steven Jones

[Hamsterwaffle]

Don't worry, if the French start a war we can just shout boo and they will surrender.

[Liam Hannan]

I dunno...
our recent defence policy has been that we'll only invade under developed second world countries like Iraq & Afghanistan and look how well that has turned out for us.

Imagine if we tried to invade a country that could actually fight back?

[soph41190]

But its good to see the French finally being a bit grateful for us saving them in WW2.
Did you save them personally?
What is it with young people that they feel so personally about things that doesn't involve them!
They have and have always thanked us......what do we expect? A basket of flowers at every door?

But concerning the topic, I have always thought that relations between France and England should be improved, theres is so much our country can learn from their's and visa versa. Plus both of these nations have been very isolationist in the recent years, its about time we involved our self in some form of active allegiance.

[Steven_Jones_-_Sheffield]

Yeah, Hamsterwaffle, just cut the macho bull. It just annoys everyone, you have the tolerance of a Sun reader. Hehe.

Steven Jones

[soph41190]

Yeah, Hamsterwaffle, just cut the macho bull. It just annoys everyone, you have the tolerance of a Sun reader. Hehe.

Steven Jones
So many people I know, (half of them with the amount of political knowledge as my dog) always harp on about 'we saved the french' 'ooh surrender monkies'. It's ridiculous, inaccurate and grossly unfair. Yeah I'm overreacting but...meh...t'annoys me :)
Tolerence of a Sun reader though hehe

[Steven_Jones_-_Sheffield]

Yeah, it's the same if you're British and you go to America, they say "We saved you in WW2"

Steven Jones

[Hamsterwaffle]

And when they do we can say, we saved your ass as well, if we had given up Hitler would have used his full forces to take Russia and then the US.

[soph41190]

Hitler vs the Us...pfft...does anyone see the image of the big man holding his palm against the little guys head as he swings his fists into the air.
This is a stupid conversation, until you are faced with a World War that threatens everything you know and love, your opinions are fruitless.

[soph41190]

By the way there is a hysterical video on youtube called 'Little Hitler'....very funny!

[Samantha Stainforth]

I do think it's fishy that Sarkozy is acting that way towards Britain. I bet no-one expected that.
I don't know what his motives may be, it just seems a little bit mysterious.........

Sam
xxxx

[Hamsterwaffle]

The French president is trying to get Britain on side for his anti Iran crusade. To me it just seems like he realises that France doesn't exactly have the best reputation in terms of military but he detests the thought of getting the Americans involved. He has threatened to use Frances nuclear arsenal if Iran is helping terrorists that target France.

[make.me.smile]

What do you mean the French don't have a good reputation in military terms? To most of the world I think we'd seem more deserving of that title...

[Paul]

What do you mean the French don't have a good reputation in military terms? To most of the world I think we'd seem more deserving of that title...

he doesn't mean how nice the army is-he means how efficient (and deadly) it is

[make.me.smile]

Does that particularly matter when they don't get involved in wars that do not concern them?

[Hamsterwaffle]

Does that particularly matter when they don't get involved in wars that do not concern them?

Well France has been in several wars but hasn't won one since WW1. The surrender monkey reputation prevents their threats being taken seriously, while the Brits may be seen by some as war mongers but we have proved to be effective at conventional wars.

[make.me.smile]

You sure about that?

[Hamsterwaffle]

Well the inital war against Saddam was a conventional war and was won pretty quickly, as was the Falklands. Its fighting Guerillas where we struggle.

[make.me.smile]

Can any of those (or any war for that matter) really be described as successful?

[cig1705]

Well the inital war against Saddam was a conventional war and was won pretty quickly, as was the Falklands. Its fighting Guerillas where we struggle.

I don't know, we were doing pretty well in NI against both loyalist and republican paramilitary forces until HMG sold out to the terrorists. The Falklands was a dashed near-run thing, too: had it been fought in 1983 we'd have had fewer carriers, less of an amphibious assault capability, no HMS Endurance and fewer surface escorts. It's worth remembering, too, that the UK lacked sufficient air defence capability such that destroyers had to be deployed as fleet radar pickets, prompting the loss of HMS Sheffield on 4 May 1982.

The French are fast catching us up in armed forces and, if our services are cut in the near future, the chances are that the French will definitely seize the mantle of biggest and best in Europe.

[Hamsterwaffle]

The French have already seized the Crown of second best funded military from us.

[cig1705]

The French have already seized the Crown of second best funded military from us.

That is true, much to my consternation. They also do a far better job of protecting their overseas territories with military force: HMG only really defends the Falklands with a permanent, specialised force, and then because they were invaded (although Gibraltar and BSBA Cyprus still have some forces: the latter is a military area anyway and the former consists of two patrol boats mustering a couple of medium calibre machine guns between them)! The others, unlike French Caledonia, Reunion, Martinique &c., are not as well defended.

[PKDhande]

I'd rather have a partnership with France than the US..

[Hamsterwaffle]

Why not both?

[make.me.smile]

Both sounds good, but not the extent as to whic we've become the US' lapdog. Keep it professional

[Hamsterwaffle]

We are quite alright on the ally front, the UKUSA community provides us with good allies and widespread intelligence cooperation. As long as we don't let them boss us around theres no harm to a positive relationship with the USA.

[make.me.smile]

As long as we don't let them boss us around........Tony Blair are you listening?

[PKDhande]

Preferably both, but rather French than the US. The US is pretty much doomed long term. In fact, forget France as well, we wanna get in with India ;-)

[Hamsterwaffle]

We are pretty much in with 118-dia any way, what with the Commonwealth and I believe they are the only country that still likes British cars.

[PKDhande]

We are pretty much in with 118-dia any way, what with the Commonwealth and I believe they are the only country that still likes British cars.

Ha, I've never seen that before! Nice.

True - they reckon in 25 years ot'll be the wealthiest country in the world. Wowza.

[Hamsterwaffle]

I doubt they will surpass us, let alone the economic Monolith that is the USA but India is going to become much richer.

[PKDhande]

Yeah it will because remember it's a fairly new country: roughly 60 years since independence... plus, look at the size of it. Plenty of resources too, generally self-sufficient.

[Hamsterwaffle]

The second the Americans think India is an economic threat, they will either crush India, be it through Tanks or Banks.

[cig1705]

I think India could be a valuable strategic ally, especially as part of a broader-pro-Commonwealth view of the world. Think on this: India has, I believe, the world's 4th or 5th largest navy, Australia has a substantial Pacific presence as a regional power and the nations of the Commonwealth provide world-wide coverage and countries of pretty much every creed and race. If we were to get Commonwealth relations back to pre-1972 relations then that may be a useful avenue to pursue...

[:Vampiress:]

How will you get India on side though? I agree I'd much rather be an ally to the french than the Americans. They are unreliable and insane.

[Hamsterwaffle]

How will you get India on side though? I agree I'd much rather be an ally to the french than the Americans. They are unreliable and insane.

The Americans and the French are the complete opposite ends of the spectrum, America is willing to fight all the time even when they shouldn't. France aren't willing to fight at all. I'd prefer to ally with neither of them. Plus what good is an ally on our doorstep. The countries of the commonwealth are our best bet.

[:Vampiress:]

France are already our allies so it's just whether we would want to strengthen them.

[coruscant]

I think we could do without the EU, especially the French who are trying to come out of their shell. We could do without the USA too. WW2 was over 60 years ago, get over it!
We need to strenghten Commonwealth links, for sure.

[Patriot 167]

In the past, Kings and Queens of England also claimed the throne of France, because Henry the II owned large parts of France.

Churchill proposed a united Britain and France in 1940 to keep them in the war.

[Hamsterwaffle]

In the past, Kings and Queens of England also claimed the throne of France, because Henry the II owned large parts of France.

Churchill proposed a united Britain and France in 1940 to keep them in the war.

We claimed the throne of France right up until Ireland joined the UK, when Mad George III decided it was a bit silly.

[coruscant]

We claimed the throne of France right up until Ireland joined the UK, when Mad George III decided it was a bit silly.
Common sense finally prevailed then.

[TheVoice]

France wanted union in the 50s, should have gone for it.

[coruscant]

France wanted union in the 50s, should have gone for it.
And here is me, under the impression we British hate the French.

[Hamsterwaffle]

And here is me, under the impression we British hate the French.

But had that union took place, we would have accomplished that which we spent 116 years trying to do.

[coruscant]

I suppose you're right...

[Hamsterwaffle]

I would have supported the Union on a few conditions.
The Union flag would be the flag.
The name would be United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and France.
Capital was London.
There would be more British MPs in parliament than French.


Mostly just so we the British can rejoice in having finally taken control of France

[TheVoice]

So you wouldnt have supported any union that would actually happen.

[Hamsterwaffle]

So you wouldnt have supported any union that would actually happen.

I dunno, the French were pretty much in a free fall when the Union was suggested by Guy Mollet.

[coruscant]

I would have supported the Union on a few conditions.
The Union flag would be the flag.
The name would be United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and France.
Capital was London.
There would be more British MPs in parliament than French.


Mostly just so we the British can rejoice in having finally taken control of France

I agree with that!

[EmmaGallen]

Frangletter coulda happened?

I dunno what i'd thin about hat. I eman for one thing how could you control it-it's so big! And then there's the whole "We lvoe ot strike" which isn't jsut a stereotype. There was a transport strike and it wasn't even on the news!

[Paul]

Frangleterre coulda happened?

I dunno what i'd thin about hat. I eman for one thing how could you control it-it's so big! And then there's the whole "We lvoe ot strike" which isn't jsut a stereotype. There was a transport strike and it wasn't even on the news!

The French rebellious spirit would have also been crushed under Thatcher...

*I prefer Franterre - like frontier, wide and ever expanding or something (referring to the far spread overseas territories of both nations).

[EmmaGallen]

But frangleterre inclides all fo the french word for england...

[Paul]

But frangleterre inclides all fo the french word for england...

but only 2/3 letters of the word for france - how about " Frangleterrence" lol

[Hamsterwaffle]

Angevin? After the Angevin Empire, which controlled half of France, England and Ireland.

[coruscant]

Sarkozy, like Thatcher, needs to sort of the unions before France can become a major European player.

[Hamsterwaffle]

Sarkozy, like Thatcher, needs to sort of the unions before France can become a major European player.

France is a major European player, thanks to Germany, but it is not a world player. In complete contrast, Britain could be considered a world player but not a major European player.

[Liam Hannan]

The difference is - France is a major european player in it's own right.

They work with germany because they are the two biggest, most powerful nations in central europe, they trade well and have been traditional rivals.

Without France, the EU wouldn't be what it is.

We, on the other hand, are only a world player on americas coat tails and memories of the past...

[Hamsterwaffle]

The difference is - France is a major european player in it's own right.

They work with germany because they are the two biggest, most powerful nations in central europe, they trade well and have been traditional rivals.

Without France, the EU wouldn't be what it is.

We, on the other hand, are only a world player on americas coat tails and memories of the past...

Oh for Gods sake Liam, just let me enjoy sounding philosophical for once will you.

[Liam Hannan]

alright... but only 'cause you asked so nicely ;0)

[Hamsterwaffle]

I think I have worked out Sarkozies motives. The main reason he wants to cooperate with Britain is because of his plan to steal our aircraft carriers.