Where are you when we REALLY need you Clement Attlee?

[threegee]

Quote

[August 1962]

I confess I feel gravely disturbed. We are allying ourselves with six nations of Europe; it may be more, but six at present. Four of those we rescued only twenty years or so ago from domination by the other two.

[Three months later]

Unfortunately, in this country the propaganda for entering the Common Market has been largely based on defeatism. We are told that unless we do it we are going to have a terrible time. That is no way to go into a negotiation. You ought to go into a negotiation on the basis that they have need of you, not just you of them.

--- Clement Attlee

What's your take on this Mr Lavery?  We really need to know!

[mercuryg]

I don't think he'll answer you, he's dead.

 

[moe19]

On 07/02/2018 at 15:12, threegee said:

What's your take on this Mr Lavery?  We really need to know!

 

1 hour ago, mercuryg said:

I don't think he'll answer you, he's dead.

 

???

[mercuryg]

37 minutes ago, moe19 said:

 

???

See the title of the thread...

[threegee]

14 hours ago, mercuryg said:

I don't think he'll answer you, he's dead.

Got there first time, this time around!  And... dead with him any shred of patriotism or basic integrity in the British Labour Party! 

Corbyn Labour wouldn't even risk a spokesperson's exposure to the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation at lunchtime. So zero hope our local Einstein will attempt to explain their position on the EU to the little people.  It would doubtless be a painfully protracted form of "Four legs good, two legs bad." - so maybe a small mercy?

[Canny lass]

I fail to see why Clement Atlee would be needed now at all. He opposed Britain’s entry to the European Union – as, in any democracy, he had every right to do. I might even point out that, despite Atlee’s opposition, Britain entered the European Union, so did he put up a good fight for his cause? Britain is now leaving the European Union thus rendering his opinion of 1962 superfluous to the debate.

“I confess I feel gravely disturbed. We are allying ourselves with six nations of Europe; it may be more, but six at present. Four of those were rescued only twenty years or so ago from domination by the other two”.

Would I think I’m right in thinking that the above quotation is taken from https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee ,Atlee’s speech in the HoL August 2^nd 1962? (It’s always nice with a source reference as it gives the reader the chance to place that quotation in its intended context. So much can be misinterpreted otherwise, I always think).

If this is the relevant speech, then Atlee was discussing change in Britain’s ‘ways’. He mentions early on that the proposal to enter the Common market would involve “an extraordinary change” from the old ways of Britain to something completely new. However, he also points out that he is not saying “that necessarily old things are right: I should be showing my age too clearly if I did that. It may be they are right: but make no mistake: this is an enormous change”.

On the subject of being tied to the common market  Atlee goes on to say that “It might be right, it may be wrong […] it is entirely different from anything we have had before” and clarifies that Britain becoming part of a larger whole “may be right now, but, historically, that has not been our position”.

He reiterates his resistance to change even in the speech of November 8^th 1962 (from which, I believe your second quotation is taken) when he says quite plainly “As I read the Treaty of Rome, the whole position means that we shall enter a federation which is composed in an entirely different way. I do not say it is the wrong way. But it is not our way.”

It appears to me that Clement Atlee was clearly concerned about eventual changes. That’s maybe not so strange, given that he was 79 years old when he made those speeches to the HoL. It’s a common fact of life that the older we get, the more resistant we are to change. I’m always telling the grandchildren that “things were better before” and I’m sure they will be telling their grandchildren the same – as will their children after them.

What he seems to be doing here is expressing his very own personal opposition to change, which we are, of course, all entitled to do, including those who made speeches advocating change. There are probably loads of those floating about the Internet as well. In his favour, Atlee makes it quite clear that he is expressing only his own personal opinion rather than fact: he makes no sweeping categorical statements. Instead, his speech is strewn with markers indicating the possibility of what may happen rather than that which will happen: “I think”, “I might be right, I may be wrong”, “we may have been”, “it does not seem to me”, “so far as I can see”. On more than one occasion, Atlee even suggests that he himself “may be merely insular” – the marker ‘may’ suggesting that he is aware of the possibility).These are admirable traits in a speaker and ones which some of us would do well to adopt in our ramblings.

Another quote attributed to Atlee reads:

“When we are returned to power we want to put in the statute book an act which will make our people citizens of the world before they are citizens of this country.” (C. R. Attlee, The Labour Party in Perspective (Left Book Club, 1937).

That statement begs the question:

Is not a united Europe a small step in that direction?

  and, perhaps even more important in these times of mass migration:

 Should the title “citizens of the world” be reserved only for the people of Britain?

Edited February 10, 2018 by Canny lass

[pilgrim]

am thinking that the last time we entered Europe was dunkirke ??

[threegee]

18 hours ago, Canny lass said:

I fail to see why Clement Atlee would be needed now at all. He opposed Britain’s entry to the European Union ...

For a pedant you don't half blunder on into irrelevancy!  The "European Union" wasn't a public issue in his time, and he was clearly referring to the EEC.

Thanks for the "research" anyway, as I'd always assumed that (like naive young me) he would have taken what he was told at face value, and voted for EEC membership.  In fact the reason I raised the matter was simply his sage advice "That is no way to go into a negotiation. You ought to go into a negotiation on the basis that they have need of you, not just you of them."  Pretty relevant to Mrs May & Co. right now I would have thought, and hopefully obvious to other readers.  And... that's the fullness of it - no essay required!

P.S.  I sort of cringe to say it - unpedantic as is my nature - but I've always assumed the old BUDC was spot on when named Attlee Park!

[threegee]

13 hours ago, pilgrim said:

am thinking that the last time we entered Europe was dunkirke ??

Wasn't the "dunkirke" thing a (glorious?) exit and not an entry?  Normandy could be the place to think.

[pilgrim]

10 hours ago, threegee said:

Wasn't the "dunkirke" thing a (glorious?) exit and not an entry?  Normandy could be the place to think.

I stand corrected and you are right yet again Canny Lass, forgive me I was having a Brexit moment!!!

[Canny lass]

21 hours ago, threegee said:

For a pedant you don't half blunder on into irrelevancy!  The "European Union" wasn't a public issue in his time, and he was clearly referring to the EEC.

L’enfant qui est aimé a plusiers noms. Non?

Of course he was referring to the EEC. So was I. In 1962, when he made that speech, the EU was the common market but then came the Maastricht Treaty. You remember the Maastricht Treaty, don’t you, or did you not manage to get past page 3 the day the Sun newspaper reported (I use the word loosely) on it? Suddenly the EEC got a new name – the European Community or EC – and it didn’t end there! Do you remember the Treaty of Lisbon a few years ago? I’m sure the Daily Wail mentioned it a couple of times. Anyhow, that treaty lead to the dear old EEC getting yet another name, would you believe, the European Union (EU). I thought everybody knew about these name changes but apparently not.  

Article 2 of the Lisbon Treaty, or ‘Amendments to the Treaty on European Union and to the treaty establishing the European Community’, to give it its full title, reads:

“The Treaty establishing the European Community shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of this article.

1)    The title of the Treaty shall be replaced by ‘Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’.

2)    Throughout the Treaty:
(a) the words ‘Community’ and European Community’ shall be replaced by ‘Union’ and any necessary grammatical changes shall be made, the words ‘European Communities’ shall be replaced by ‘European Union’, except in paragraph 6(c) of Article 299, renumbered paragraph 5(c) of Article 311(a). In respect of Article 136, this amendment shall apply only to the mention of ‘The Community’ at the beginning of the first paragraph”;

(Oh, how I miss my job!)

Both the good earl and I myself were, in fact, referring to the same thing, each using the terminology of the day. So, my “blundering” wasn’t totally irrelevant. The European Union is definitely a public issue in my time, is it not?

[Canny lass]

22 hours ago, threegee said:

P.S.  I sort of cringe to say it - unpedantic as is my nature - but I've always assumed the old BUDC was spot on when named Attlee Park!

So I incorrectly wrote ‘Atlee’. My deepest apologies to the good people of Bedlington. There’s just no excuse for getting a proper noun wrong!. Ah well, at least I remembered the capital letter.

However, if you want to play ‘language police’ or ‘naughty, pedantic language police’ as I prefer to call it, then I must point out that English words of Latin origin don’t usually take the prefix un-. This is most often reserved for words of Germanic origin. Non-, or a- are usually good substitutes for un-.

Looking at some of the text submitted during the last few days (Where are you when we REALLY need you Clement Attlee) I see:

Wednesday 13:30

“If you are referring to slavery, we pioneered the abolition of that - a practice which had gone on for thousands of years before we brought the forces off Empire to bear on it.” 

Some of us miss a letter (Atlee), some of us add an extra letter. I think ‘of’ might have made more sense here.

Wednesday 14:25

“Good use of the old Ad Hominem there Merc!”

Ad hominum requires only one upper-case letter, the letter A., and this ONLY in initial position in a sentence. Really surprised here as this is a frequently used expression when up against the wall or in a corner on this site. It just goes to show that practice doesn’t always make perfect, eh?

Wednesday 15:02

“Berlusconi has his areas of support in the center of politics”

That’s not very patriotic now, is it! Center is usually spelled ‘centre’ in British English.

Feb 5^th

“I've just done a bike up for my Nigerian friend "Happy" so he can get from his hotel to the supermarket car park on the other side of town with less risk of being own down on these treacherous roads,”

I think the particle verb required here is ‘run down’.

… and you Merc. You really should know better!

Wednesday 14:36, Lord Ridley socks it to the HoL on  your behalf?

“By the way, here's a tip for recognising when someone is really struggling to keep their place in a discussion: they start calling people names like 'leftie' and so on, as you have done! It's a dead giveaway! It's the equivalent of throwing ones toys out of the pram.”

 

How many times must I tell you that the correct spelling of ‘toys’ is d-u-m-m-y (s-o-o-t-h-e-r, if you’re not patriotic and using American English) Consider your wrists well and truly slapped, young man!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Canny lass

[Canny lass]

 ... and by the way 2g, you don't need to read my posts if you think they are too long, too boring, or too 'anything else. As owner of this site you must be aware that there is a 'Mark site read' option at the top of the page, just under the 'search box'. It works  well.

[Canny lass]

11 hours ago, pilgrim said:

I stand corrected and you are right yet again

It's an annoying habit that I've developed over the years.

You are forgiven.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Canny lass

[mercuryg]

Quote

 

Ah Canny Lass, how I love your lessons! I must say, however, the expression has always seen toys thrown from the pram. The dummy is spat out. I have asked Small Dog what he thinks of all this. He merely burrowed back beneath his blanket. I don't blame him.

[mercuryg]

On 10/02/2018 at 00:10, threegee said:

G

Corbyn Labour wouldn't even risk a spokesperson's exposure to the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation at lunchtime. 

Out of interest, why should they, or any party, do so? There's no obligation? I tend to find the TV political debate and interview stuff to be dumbed down to the lowest level and of little interest. Waste of their time,

[Canny lass]

On 2018-02-12 at 10:19, mercuryg said:

Ah Canny Lass, how I love your lessons!

I do my best, Merc, I do my best.

[pilgrim]

small dog

[pilgrim]

same small dog

 

[Canny lass]

Bernese sennenhund?

Babysit an 8 year-old 3 days a week. Lovely dog. I don't think the young lady will be lifting it like that in a year or so!

[pilgrim]

that was 3 yrs ago -- as er well young lady -- that is the child -- one does wonder why you spend that much money on a private education to get someone as dim as a pup!!! and now that small dog is about 85 kilo but still a complete wuss.

I have had berner sennenhunds for over 30 yrs -- the tragedy is then they lived to @12-13 yrs -- now its 6 - 8 -- last one was taken 2 weeks before 6th b/day -- cancer takes 80% but his father is from Russia so we hoping ----

they are the most adoring loyal and protective - in a very laid back way animals I have ever know -- nothing is a worry and they can take 5 mins or 5 miles exercise a day its not a prob

[Canny lass]

Complete wuss is a perfect description! This one is too. 

[pilgrim]

On ‎12‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 09:29, mercuryg said:

Out of interest, why should they, or any party, do so? There's no obligation? I tend to find the TV political debate and interview stuff to be dumbed down to the lowest level and of little interest. Waste of their time,

that is limnality  - its been used in the military for many yrs and is an insinuous part of hr now. if used correctly it is a wonderful tool - but these days it is very eric Arthur blair --now theres a challenge lol (and ya cant use google)

[pilgrim]

canny lass - forgive the lower case but I think I can be familiar with you now (awaits rants from the pedants) this beast is called Kota - Japanese for happiness but as that language is very contextual - its happiness associated with the birth of the first son and as this was our first 'dog' rather  than bitch it was appropriate - oh ands he sleeps upside down on his back as I think he learnt that from the cat - who is of course the boss!!

[Canny lass]

1 hour ago, pilgrim said:

that is limnality 

I don't wish to be pedantic or anything but would that be the same as liminality?

You can't go missing out letters here, there and everywhere. It upsets the natives.