Det er langt ude - Churchill var imod Europas forenede stater og det skjuler man så ved at opkalde en del af parlamentet efter Winston Churchill.
Churchill vilde vende sig i sin grav over at blive misbrugt som en figur der sagde Ja til EU, når han hele sin regeringstid forholdt dig til et samarbejde mellem frie stater i Europa - Fremfor det tysk dominerede Fascistiske Monstrum EU har udviklet sig til.
Men Rune Kristensen falder som så mange andre, på røven over denne groteske misinformation af besøgende, som man netop har fabrikeret, fordi folk så sjældent tjekker om det kan være rigtigt at EU og EU's propagandamaskine kan finde på noget så fræk som også at misinformere om hvem der gik ind for EU og hvem der ikke gjorde.
Og Margareth Thatcher forholdt sig netop til Churchill's EU modstand, lige som hun selv var modstander af EU gennem hele sit politiske liv.
Rune Kristensen er som så mange andre blevet forført af trænede EU folk der har fået ham til at synes at vi bør have færre kommissærer, noget der sikkert ville fryde EU kommissionen som ønsker så lidt indblanding i deres gøren og laden som overhovedet muligt og de enkelte landes kommissærer, har netop indflydelse på hvad der foregår i EU.
Alt i alt er det deprimerende at man kan sende folk til EU og så taber de hovedet og går ind for alt hvad de burde være imod.
"Churchill's ‘No’ to Europe: The ‘Rejection’ of European Union by Churchill's Post-War Government, 1951–1952
John W. Young - Leicester University!
There are several points in post-war history at which, it is argued, Britain lost an early opportunity to enter the European community.
The refusals to join the Schuman Plan and Messina deliberations in the 1950s, and the failure of the E.E.C. applications of Macmillan and Wilson, are most commonly mentioned.
But some commentators have pointed to another ‘missed opportunity’, following Winston Churchill's return to Downing Street in October 1951. For, in opposition, Churchill had seemed a great exponent of European unity, and several of his ministers – foremost among them the home secretary, Maxwell Fyfe, and housing minister, Harold Macmillan – had shown great enthusiasm for his ideas.
Hopes that Churchill's government would favour a more positive approach to European unification were quickly disappointed, however: within weeks the foreign secretary, Anthony Eden, had ruled out any direct British role in Europe's emerging ‘supranational’ institutions, and in 1952 he defeated some determined efforts by Macmillan to change his policy.
The ‘pro-Europeans’ did not forget this ‘betrayal’, however. They argued that a real opportunity to take the leadership of Europe had been lost and in the ensuing years, as Britain's failure to join the European community became more generally criticized, their thesis seemed credible.
An examination of the evidence, however, allows a very different picture of this ‘missed opportunity’ to be painted."
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=1E7359476A0A9DB9DF52475 />
EU tilhængerne forholder sig til Churchills tale i Schweitz, hvor han talte om en samling af Europa, men Churchill pointerede altid at det skulle være et samarbejde mellem frie stater, ikke et Supranationalt projekt og slet ikke det EU vi ser idag.
http://blogs.jp.dk/klarkontantkristensen/2013/05/22/eu-pamp-vol-iv/
