That\’s all we bleedin\’ need, innit?

Scardino, who was born and raised in Texas but has lived in the UK for 20 years, also said the EU was in need of leaders of the stature of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln to help it through its current political and financial malaise.

Which is it then? A bloody throwing off of the vile colonial imposition from Brussels or a vast slaughter as Brussels imposes the no secession from colonialism rule?

Either way, the thought that we need a war to deal with 50,000 bureaucrats does seem a little odd. And there was me thinking that the point of the EU was to end war in Europe.

18 thoughts on “That\’s all we bleedin\’ need, innit?”

  1. “…the thought that we need a war to deal with 50,000 bureaucrats does seem a little odd..”

    Count me odd then.

  2. The EU makes a war more likely as it forces populations to change and adapt at a rate faster than they would do naturally. Such a fast change puts stress society. When when someone is stressed they can react in various ways. Sometimes by kicking out against the thing creating the stress – the EU.

  3. So Scardino thinks Cameron should send the Army into Scotland to enforce the Union if Salmond wins the referendum?

  4. john77 makes me wonder how you can be simultaneously in favour of an EU-exit referendum and against a Scottish independence referendum.

    Government is merely a matter of scale. That it should happen for different things on different scales (local, state/county, national, international) is pretty obvious, and that it’ll restrict your rights in some way is also obvious. Otherwise everyone could declare their house independent, and a tax haven to boot.

  5. Oh dear. We’re at a fine pass when people are calling for the proverbial Man on a Horse to rescue us. People might want a Lincoln or a Washington to lead them in straitened times but experience suggests they’re more likely to wind up with a Napoleon or a Louis XIV.

  6. Surreptitious Evil

    Running the entire EU bureaucracy up a beach in the face of heavy machine-gun fire seems an ideal game to me.

    The Commissioners can be the spearhead troops, and can be directly supported by the MEPs.

    There are a couple of casualties amongst the latter we might regret but, hey, eggs and omelettes.

  7. So Much for Subtlety

    David Gillies – “People might want a Lincoln or a Washington to lead them in straitened times but experience suggests they-re more likely to wind up with a Napoleon or a Louis XIV”

    Better Louis XIV than Lincoln, Washington or Napoleon. The idea of Revolution, and thus the desire to remake mankind, is the real problem. The rest is detail.

  8. @SE that’s a cracking idea. As they forge inland, they can drive our MPs ahead of them to clear the minefields on foot. Plus we’ll drop Murphy, Hutton et al behind enemy lines to carry out sabotage and recce missions.

    Playing the part of the Germans will be 2 Para, with very lax ROE.

  9. SMFS-

    Neither Lincoln nor Washington were revolutionaries. The American “Revolutionary” war was a war of secession (from England), and the Civil War was a war to prevent secession from the USA.

  10. SMFS-

    Neither Lincoln nor Washington were revolutionaries. The American “Revolutionary” war was a war of secession (from England), and the Civil War was a war to prevent secession from the USA.

  11. Surreptitious Evil

    Interested,

    I wasn’t planning on them getting off the beach, frankly. Let the tide assist the cleanup effort and suchlike.

    I’m up for the “behind the lines” drops, though. We’d need to make sure they had all the safety gear – flashing lights to warn people they are in the air (aka aiming points.) Or, alternatively, we could get the TJN to knit them their parachutes.

  12. So Much For Subtlety

    Ian B – “Neither Lincoln nor Washington were revolutionaries. The American [Revolutionary] war was a war of secession (from England), and the Civil War was a war to prevent secession from the USA.”

    The Revolution was a revolution. It not only sought independence from Britain, it did so on specifically ideological grounds. Which is why the Constitution does things like ban titles and other fripperies of nobility. It starts out with an explicit call that all men are created equal. It is just that their ideology has been so successful we do not see how dangerous it was at the time.

    But I will admit it was a revolution carried out by Southern landed gentlemen who made damn sure no social revolution was carried out. A very liberal revolution. If the Northern radicals had got their way, it would have ended much worse.

    Still from Tom Paine to Robespierre to Stalin is an unbroken line of development.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *