UKIP: Churchill says no to Europe
Finally, some positive political engagement – four European election campaign leaflets drop through the door. The New Labour one is giving postal voting the hard sell for some reason. There was also one each from the Greens and Lib Dems.
It was the UKIP one that caught my eye, however. I thought I knew a fair bit about British history but I never knew that the late Winston Churchill was a member of UKIP (est. 1993).
This must be a different Winston Churchill than the one who called for a ‘United States of Europe‘ in 1946 and suggested the creation of a European Army under a unified command in 1950. Otherwise UKIP would be guilty of misleading and pointless jingoism and I’m sure that can’t be the case.
Posted on May 12th, 2009 at 12:34pm under UK politics
More Winnie quotes:
“We are with Europe, but not of it”
“We are linked- but not combined”
“We are interested and associated but not absorbed”.
Or read the Zurich speech. Yes, he calls for a United Europe. He also says that Britain and her Commonwealth would be separate from it.
So you’re saying that if ‘Winnie’ was alive today he’d be in UKIP? Can I have the name of your medium?
I don’t know the medium’s name, but he’s got a hotline to Adam as well (Adam Smith that is; Timmeh Worstall’s on first name terms with him, too).
Point of the order: The European Defence Community to which you refer was a French plan and proposal under René Plevan. The Treaty, signed in 1952, between West Germany, France, Italy, and the Benelux, failed to be ratified, ironically, by the French. The EDC was meant to sit alongside NATO – the defence alliance that the United Kingdom was in, and Churchill supported remaining in.
I’m only saying this because you could be guilty of misleading historical references which I’m sure can’t be the case.
Might I also suggest researching Churchill’s concept of the three intersecting circles of power which had Britain in the interscts circled with Empire/Commonwealth as one circle, the USA and English-speaking world as another, and a United Europe as the third. This might help you place Churchill’s comments in 1945 with his thinking of how the post-war geopolitical order would look.
This is beginning to look like concerted trolling by right-wingers, but it’s not (or if it is, I’ve been left out of it)…
Tim is correct to say that Churchill did not envisage Britain being part of the United Europe – he quite specifically refers to the Commonwealth, USA and Soviet Union as being “partners” and friends of the new Europe.
We can’t know whether he would have felt the same way in a situation where the Empire was dead and the Commonwealth irrelevant.
Which is why it’s daft to quote him in support of Britain being in the EU, and daft to suggest he’d have been in favour of withdrawal.
“So you’re saying that if ‘Winnie’ was alive today he’d be in UKIP? ”
Justin, Winnie’s an image, an iconic figure. We’re using him as such. What’s the problem with that?
But what does it mean? What is it trying to say? It doesn’t explain in the leaflet where Churchill figures in UKIP policy. It’s meaningless. It’s jingoism. Are you going to fight them on the beaches, is that it?
Robert Kilroy-Silk is also an historic figure, why don’t UKIP use him instead?
Oh, right…
“… Winnie’s an image, an iconic figure. We’re using him as such. What’s the problem with that?”
I would suggest that you’ve elucidated the problem quite clearly yourself, Tim. The image of Winston Churchill is iconic (though from my own perspective, he symbolises something very different than he clearly does to UKIP). But surely this implies that some care should be taken when using the image? Rather than implying that anyone at all has carte-blanche to use his image as they choose?
There is no evidence at all that Churchill would support currect UKIP policy. Just as there’s no evidence that (Godwin alert) Hitler would support them. Right? But he’s pretty iconic too, so I figure you’d have no problem with UKIP’s opponents implying that he too would be a supporter of the party were he alive.
Iconic doesn’t actually mean “can be used in a consciously dishonest manner”.
Hi
Tim Worstall asks what is wrong with UKIP using Winston Churchill’s image in their campaign?
Its use demonstrates that UKIP do not have a very good understanding of British society or its history.
Winston Churchill is not in any way a suitable figure for an anti-EU campaign for the points raised in this blog posting and in the following comments.
The thing which UKIP and the BNP have in common is an astonishing ignorance of British society as this gaff by UKIP reveals.
Mr E said,
We can’t know whether he would have felt the same way in a situation where the Empire was dead and the Commonwealth irrelevant.
Which is why it’s daft to quote him in support of Britain being in the EU, and daft to suggest he’d have been in favour of withdrawal.
Agreed.
UKIP don’t appear to be quoting him. They’ve just plastered his pic on their leaflets, presumably in the hope a bit of his prestige will rub off on them.
Who’s next? Jesus?
The BNP has already bagged Jesus.
Does Churchill’s estate have any image copyright?
The desperate have to clutch at straws and put great men next to their silly ideas to give them any creedence.
Hoping a bit of Chruchill magic rubs off on the polite racists, having said that, the old duffer did have a soft spot for eugenics.
Hey, if that ‘great person next to ill thought out nonsense’ stuff worked, I’d start a party with a manifesto that rambled on about chips, rock music and publicly financing more ‘Blade’ movies next to a fuck off big picture of Jimi Hendrix.
Who’s with me? Together we can revive the Blade series, while listening to AC/DC and eating chips. Policies welcome.
That last bit should have read ‘policy suggestions welcome’. I think I’d call the party UChip.
it’s a just a mix up – they told the leaflet designer they wanted Churchill on the flyer and didn’t make clear they meant the nodding dog from the insurance advert….
…or indeed the currently controversial feminist playwright…
That’s a shameful leaflet in just about every possible way.
I particularly like “Say no to unlimited immigration”. *MASSIVE FUCKING DOGWHISTLE* from your favourite libertarian, non-racist [hilariously, the second abjectival contruction they could think of to describe themselves] party.
Incidentally, I just love “Justin, Winnie’s an image, an iconic figure. We’re using him as such. What’s the problem with that?”. I suppose you don’t object to the BNP using him then? After all, they’re just using “an image, an iconic figure”, aren’t they? What’s the problem with that?
Isn’t it time that UKIP changed its initials to UKIPEFA? – UK Independence Party (Except From America)? They whine and bark endlessly about the eevvillls of Europe but utter nary a yelp about the seemingly unbreakable leash that Washington has about this country’s neck.
I think the argument is that Churchill was against the krauts, the krauts are in the EU, therefore he’d be against the EU.
There was this Prime Minister who proposed that the UK and France merge their governments and have a common citizenship. What was his name? It escapes me for a moment.
http://europa.eu/abc/history/foundingfathers/churchill/index_en.htm
Churchill’s thinking had evolved since his Zurich speech in September 1946. He wrote an article in the French revue ‘Fédération’ in July 1947 where, referring to the sympathies of the British Dominions towards a united Europe, he wrote: “They feel, as we do, that Great Britain, geographically and historically, is part of Europe. If a unified Europe is to be a living force, Great Britain will have to play its full role as a memeber of the European family.” (translation)
He spoke in similar terms at a meeting of the United Europe movement at the Albert Hall in May 1947.
“There was this Prime Minister who proposed that the UK and France merge their governments and have a common citizenship. What was his name? It escapes me for a moment.”
It was Churchill.
But the next day the French decided to sign an Armistice with Hitler instead.
Kinda puts a different slant on that, doesn’t it?
As for a United Europe, weren’t his ideas based on natural groupings of peoples (USA, Russia, Commonwealth, CONTINENTAL Europe…..) coming together in United Nations type regional organisations of sovereign states, under the umbrella of the UN?
So nothing to do with the latest EU treaty.
In fact, nothing to do with the EU.
Which didn’t exist when he died.
He might well have, towards the end, accepted that the UK had a ROLE in a European ECONOMIC Community, or Common Market, but wasn’t this with the proviso that that role respected the UK’s links and responsibilities towards the Commonwealth, Empire, such as it as, Africa, and the European Free Trade Area.
So no signing up to a EU then!