BS: War with England?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: The Curator
Date: 02 Jul 05 - 12:04 PM

Please leave the Irish out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jul 05 - 12:00 PM

I'm still very curious as to the source for "double pay" for the Hessians, what that would be in current money,--- and the nature of the treaties between Hesse and Britain. And it's pretty clear that the ties between Britain and Hanover would be far greater than those between Britain and Hesse (or Britain and Brunswick).

Any info?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 02 Jul 05 - 04:41 AM

Back in those days everyone looted, the Germans just seemed better at it.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: The Walrus
Date: 02 Jul 05 - 01:57 AM

Ron,

"...It's certainly clear the British had close ties to Hanover, but it's not so clear that they had them with Hesse or Brunswick..."

I believe there were blood ties between the House of Hanover and the Dukes of Brunswick, but I wouldn't swear to it.

Regards

W

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jun 05 - 07:30 AM

Furthermore I would say that for somebody to be a quisling he has to have a hope and expectation of reward from the enemy. Therefore neither John Brown nor John Wilkes Booth are quislings--since they did not do their deeds for hope of reward. Nor did von Stauffenberg.

However, Wilfried, to return to our earlier discussion--that's the first time I've ever heard that Hessian soldiers got "double pay". What's the source? Also, can you make a guestimate of how much their double pay would be in current euros?

It's true "Hessians" have had an extremely bad press. It does appear that some were hanged for looting--but obviously there are bad apples. It's great to hear another side.

But I think we are hairsplitting on whether the "Hessians"---- (which, as I said, in America was sloppily used to designate all the German soldiers fighting on behalf of the British--what can you expect from a country which talks of Pennsylvania Dutch, not Deutsch?)---were mercenaries.

Why do you think they were not mercenaries?. The dictionary definition I have found defines mercenary as "one who serves merely for wages". This would seem to fit.

You say the British paid for the Hessian soldiers both in peace and wartime. Did Hesse ever request British military support for an operation? "Bound by treaty"--what was the nature of this treaty? What were the British to provide, aside from money?

It sounds as if the British were trying to arrange for a group of hired soldiers to be available for any operation they (the British) might desire. It's certainly clear the British had close ties to Hanover, but it's not so clear that they had them with Hesse or Brunswick.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 30 Jun 05 - 02:57 AM

Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg is the correct name. He should never put on the same level with Quisling.
His oath of allegiance when he entered military service was to the republic; only later all soldiers were sworn in anew to Hitler. A former supporter of Nazism he changed his attitude after the pogrom of 1938. His intended assassination of Hitler was not to destroy the Reich, but to preserve it in freedom.
Therefore he is highly esteemed in the republic and especially commemorated on July 20, flags at half-mast.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 11:40 PM

"Claus" appears to be another spelling. But the moral relativism point still holds--unless all we're trying to do is play an intellectual game.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 11:14 PM

Is traitor "defined by which side wins?"   That's a little facile, Rapaire. Not usually your style. Claus (sic) von Stauffenberg (actually Klaus) was and is a hero, not a Quisling, to anybody who thought Hitler should be removed from the scene permanently. You can carry historical and moral relativism too far.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 09:49 PM

Quisling, Vidkun (1887-1945), Norwegian politician, whose collaboration with the Nazis...during World War II (1939-1945) made his name synonymous with traitor. In the 1930s he found the Nationa Union, a Fascist party that received subsidies from Germany. After the Nazi invasion of Norway in 1940 the National Union was declared the only legal party. The Germans installed Quisling as prime minister in 1942 and throughout the war he collaborated with the Nazis. Quisling was tried and executed after the war.

Other countries have had similar people: Benedict Arnold, Claus von Stauffenberg, William Joyce, Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy, the Philby-Maclean-Burgess-Blunt-Cairncross group -- traitors or patriots? Or is "traitor" defined by which side wins?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 05:45 PM

They were fighting among themselves enough as it was. The only people they liked less than other clans, were foreigners. Their own chiefs used them against each other, q.v. James VI's writs of Fyre and Sword.
Frankly, if you lived within range of Highlander deprevations, I doubt you'd apply the term quisling to the Black Watch. Maybe to some of their masters, but not the actual soldiers, as their loyalt was to the head of the clan.
Policing here was more a case of protecting the rest of the country rather than conquering the Highlanders.
Roads eventualy did that far more effectively.

P.S.
In 1667 the Earl of Atholl was commissioned by the king to raise companies to keep "watch on the braes." This of course was to protect the Lowlands. Who protected the countryside from them is an enitrely different matter. Charles II was their king, so would you still use the term quisling?

BTW, how much of Gaelic being banned is true and how much is a myth like the banning of bagpipes?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 05:15 PM

So, when Cromwell said of the Irish that he could easily find one to turn the spit while another roasted, was he correct?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 05:06 PM

My understanding is that a quisling sells out his own. The Black Watch were raised to police their own. At that time it was illegal to wear tartan and speak gaelic. It was therefor easier to raise a highland regiment by allowing them to wear tartan, albeit the Government tartan akin to Argyle's and allowing them to use gaelic enabling them to speak to the locals in their own tongue. Such a police force can surley be equated to the actions of Quisling, the original Norwegian nazi informer.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 03:30 PM

However your phrase quisling is innacurate.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 06:17 AM

My disagreement with Charmion is on the assumption that mercenaries were foreign to the government who employed them. Since the Union of 1707 both Scots and English shared common National Identity, i.e. British. I am not complaining about the perjorative or otherwise nature of the word 'mercenary', only that it is incorrect to apply it to Scottish soldiers after that date.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 02:49 AM

Merces (lat.) = ware, can also be money (metal as a ware), hence mercenary.
Soldo (ital.) = money paid for service rendered, hence soldier.
In the end it makes no difference: Both are people in armed service professionally fighting for their subsistence.
That mercenaries can have the same loyalty as soldiers is best shown by the Swiss mercenaries of the Bishop of Rome (aka The Pope) during the sack of Rome, or of the late King Louis XVI - in defence of him his Swiss guards were massacred to the last man.
Now, Charmion, what does the army lawyer say?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: The Walrus
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 09:44 PM

The point to remember about the British Army (Raised in all three Kingdoms) is that, before the 19th Century, it wasn't a unified body below the level of General Officer.
While a Brigadier and upward were part of the 'Army Establishment', the individual regiments (with the exception of Artillery, Engineers, Sappers, Waggoners etc. <1>) were in fact a form of franchise operation.

A would-be Colonel obtained a 'beating order' from the Government, allowing him to raise a Regiment 'by beat of drum'. From that point on, it was his responsibility to recruit, clothe, arm and equip his regiment (within the framework of the regulations) - he was paid a fixed fee per man for uniform, arms and equipment (on a pre-determined scale) and pay at fixed intervals all based on the nominal roll (and, yes, there were incidence of corruption). How a Colonel recruited was up to him and there are recorded cases of Highland 'Lairds' either forcably recruiting their own clansmen or indeed selling them to regiments due to serve abroad.

The point is, if the Highland chieftans in Charmion's posts simply handed over his men as a military force, then, provided they went of their own accord, they were mercenaries, however, IF the Chieftan had an order allowing him to raise a force for the Crown - albeit militia <2>(and in the light of the actions following the '15 and '45 - he'd be bloody stupid not to have) then the force is NOT mercenary, but legitimate forces of the Crown <3>.

Regards

W

<1> These were direct Government forces unter the Authority of the Board of Ordenance.
<2> Such as the "Argyll Militia" Raised by the Duke of Argyll as a Government Force (these, I believe were the Campbells of the Infamous Glencoe Massacre).
<3> A legitimate commission could mean the difference between exile and execution if caught on the wrong side of a dynastic struggle.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 06:31 PM

Charmion, your phrase ...troops raised by a leader to whom they give their primary loyalty, and who takes them so embodied into a foreign army... My point is that Scottish troops were not taken into a foreign army as they were British and the army was British. Are you assuming that British means English? I cannot understand your logic at all as there is no way that any Scottish regiment, after 1707 can be classed other than British.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 05:53 PM

This discussion is truly fascinating. I know it doesn't matter a whit, but thanks to you guys for this unique insight.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Charmion
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 04:43 PM

Oh GUEST of 11:31 AM on 28 June, do you perhaps consider the word "mercenary" to be pejorative? I do not; it simply describes troops raised by a leader to whom they give their primary loyalty, and who takes them so embodied into a foreign army. Sometimes that arrangement is formally concluded between states, as with the Swiss. (I am, in fact, descended from a family of Swiss mercenaries that had brothers in the British and French armies at the same time while those nations were at war. The first of my ancestors to arrive in Canada was one of Haldimand's officers in Wolfe's army.) And sometimes that arrangement is concluded less formally, as between the MacDonells of Glengarry or the Frasers and Whitehall -- complicated, as I said, by the military occupation of Scotland and the divisions in Scottish society after the '45.

At that time, the clan levies of Scotland were only beginning to evolve into the Highland regiments of the Imperial period. It's frankly difficult to draw a firm distinction between:
* a Swiss regiment of landless men raised by the government of their canton and contracted out to the British Army for a campaign in Quebec to earn money to support their families in Switzerland, and
* a Scottish chief's regiment with tacksmen for officers and its ranks filled with cottars, handed over to the British Army for a campaign in Quebec so their valour and fighting skill would rehabilitate relations with the Crown, and their pay could support their families in Scotland.

The motivations were the same: to send fit men who would otherwise compete for scarce land and perhaps get into trouble to soldier for a distant power and thus earn credit and trust from that power as well as hard cash.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 12:27 PM

They are, but they are not mercenaries in the case quoted above.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 11:47 AM

Quislings is worse than mercenairies.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 11:31 AM

Charmion, it is totally unfair and incorrect to include the aforementioned regiments as mercenaries. The Scottish and English parliaments were united in 1707 and after that date all Scottish and English regiments were classed as belonging to the British army. I would class the Black Watch more as Quislings as they were raised to police the highlands but they were still part of the British army. Their tartan is also known as The Government Tartan, hardly mercenaries.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Charmion
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 10:26 AM

Dear GUEST of 0520 on 27 June:

The relations between England and Scotland during the 18th century were such that they should be considered as they are today: separate kingdoms that happened to have the same monarch. The difference circa 1750-whatever was that opinion was divided over the identity of that monarch.

The British Army of the time was a masterpiece of ad-hockery, composed of regiments raised for specific missions and disbanded when those missions were completed if other employment could not be found for them. (Public-sector contingency employment goes back a long way, it seems.) Fraser's Highlanders is only one such regiment; I could also name the Glengarry Fencibles (who eventually settled *as a regiment* in Upper Canada) and even the Black Watch.

I think it fair to include these regiments among the mercenaries because of the social circumstances from which they arose, and the way in which they were employed.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 07:59 AM

Ron - if my friend's ancestor had been an officer (they mostly belonged to the landed gentry), he could have sent his son to university by his own means.
My friend had explicitely stated that his ancestor was a peasant. Don't forget that the Hessian soldiers got double pay, and over the seven years of the war they sent back the money they didn't need in the colonies, because they were accustomed to a thrifty life. The several hundred thousands of Thalers (americanized to dollars) were a big kick to the economy of Hessen-Kassel and the forthcoming of many a family.
I'm from a peasant's family too, but my ancestor had a big inn besides at the great road from Hamburg to Basel, and the eldest son inherited the farm; the younger ones had to go to university. So since the beginning of the 18th century my ancestors were mostly ministers. The entrance into academic life of peasants' or craftsmen's sons was always the theological faculty, and the studies of qualified theologicians were often supported by The Fund (an endowment of the late Landgrave Philipp). You had to get only a small capital to get to a start.

The State of Hessen-Kassel had a lot of treaties for mutual military support with several other states, e.g. Sweden since the 30 years war. The treaty which paid best was the treaty with the British Crown, often renewed. The Crown paid most of the expenses of the Hessian army in peacetime, and when needed the army marched to support the British army. Sometimes it was the other way round. So the Hessian soldiers were not REPEAT NOT mercenaries, but members of a regular army bound by treaty to support a friendly army (like NATO today - any soldier of the NATO would be highly insulted if you called him mercenary when fighting side by side with his allies).
In your post I find a lot of the usual anti-Hessian propaganda; about 1866 some of it was repeated by the Prussians who finally annected this state because of its riches which stemmed from the American war (the robbed treasure was kept by the Prussians to the beginnings of the 1920s when it dwindled away during the inflation).

Your remarks about the parallel to the war in VN I found very interesting. The experiences Hessian and other officers had made with a people's liberation war were not without fruit. The uprisings against French rule in 1809 were incited mostly by veterans of the American war. Unfortunately the time wasn't ripe, but in 1813 they succeeded.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 03:29 AM

Not anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 03:21 AM

99 is the new 100.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 11:20 PM

Wilfried--

The story of university educations courtesy of pay as mercenaries sounds a bit apocryphal--it may well be part of your friend's family lore, but your friend's ancestors must then have all been officers-- and as peasants I wouldn't think that's likely. The rank and file were not paid well at all--much of the money went to the local Landgraf or Herzog who was supplying the troops and who was paid even more if a soldier was killed or wounded. ("Hessians" was in fact a catch-all term for German soldiers.)   This arrangement even provided an opportunity for propaganda by Franklin, who wrote a letter, which pointed out the advantages to a purported German duke if there were a lot of casualties.

"Hessians" were famous (or infamous) for looting--at least many of these offenses were charged to "Hessians" by the British---and some were hanged.



It would be fascinating if there were some proof of the story--too bad you can't ask your friend.



One thing I read recently, possibly of interest here, is that when the British were trying to involve foreign soldiers against the American colonies, they first tried to get Russians--specifically for the reason that it would be difficult for them to desert, since there were few Russian speakers in the colonies. On the other hand, there were a lot of German speakers--so sanctuary and blending in with the local population would be easier. But the French and the Germans, for differing reasons, were able to torpedo British neogotiations with Russia.   The Russian troops never came.




The book I'm reading now makes it abundantly clear that the American Revolution was in fact Britain's Vietnam-style quagmire--complete with a very vocal and vociferous opposition, slashing attacks in the press, national security questions, and even riots at home.

The riots appear to be due to other complications. When the French joined the Americans in 1778 (after Saratoga), there was a threat of French invasion of Britain. An inconclusive battle off Ushant resulted in charges and countercharges between Admiral Keppel, who was in charge of the British fleet --(and who was against the American war)-- and Admiral Palliser, who was supported by the pro-war group, including Lords Sandwich and Germain.

It turned out that the log of a ship had been falsified to make it appear that Admiral Keppel had neglected his duty. When the frame-up was discovered and Keppel was acquitted ---(and not, like Admiral Byng, executed on his own flagship), rioting crowds attacked the Admiralty building in Whitehall, "lifting the gates off their hinges"---then went looking for Palliser and his supporters (who included many prominent proponents of the American war, such as Lords North and Germain).

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 07:08 PM

The Governor finds himself in another quandry.

The gala was a ball, thanks to your kindness and generousity. Unfortunately, I bear bad news.

The Governor has asked me to convey his deepest sympathies for the rudeness of General Sir Robert Ross. Whilst kind Sir did attempt to leave a thank you note for your helpful packaging of the dining wares for transport, none of your staff were on hand to greet him, and, apparently the note was victem to fire resulting from errant BBQ'g. Touchy thing, that BBQ fluid... one can never be too careful. As I understand it, some property was also damaged. Apologies.

Well, here's the bad news. The Governor has not been able to replace the damaged setting, and, since your wares were actually a gift from the Crown oh so many years ago in the first place (no pun intended) the Governor has seen fit to keep them. Should you feel strongly to the contrary, you may collect them at your will, but please give us notice if you do send a party to collect them.

*********************************
Yo Rap! Forgive my literary license, but is this not in the spirit of your original post?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 05:58 PM

Kilts? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 05:34 PM

Or, McTavish?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 05:27 PM

If the Scots had played their cards right in 1647 and not handed over Charles I to Oliver's army, we'd all be wearing kilts and called MacTavish.

Possibly.....

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 05:20 PM

Charmion, how can you say that mercenary regiments came from Scotland during a British parliament? Have you no sense of history? Don't you know anything about Britain as distinct from England? No wonder the English will never understand Europeanism with such an imperialstic and blinkered view.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 04:39 PM

Gurkhas are the last mercenaries.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Charmion
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 02:11 PM

Some quibbles about the British Army:

The British Army as a whole has belonged to Parliament (not the Crown) since Cromwell's time, and is never referred to as Royal. Many regiments and corps have royal sponsors (e.g., the Royal Corps of Transport) but not all (the Army Catering Corps).

In its troop-levying practices, the British Parliament has racked up several centuries of -- shall we say -- equal-opportunity oppression. Mercenary regiments came from Scotland (e.g., Fraser's Highlanders) and Switzerland (Haldimand's Legion) as well as Hesse and Hanover by the same mechanism: colonels were invited to raise regiments at War Office expense, which were then simply added to expeditionary forces by royal order through the War Office. Britain used mercenaries in this way as late as 1857, when Hessian troops were hired for operations in the Crimea.

Because of Europe's international alliances and royal dynasties, 18th-century European armies were truly multicultural, while each being a subculture of its own. The British Army absorbed its non-English elements through its regimental system, maintaining the outward and visible signs of difference such as kilts, grenadiers' caps and bagpipes, and imposing army-wide culture throughout the ranks by means of discipline, training and long stints of overseas service.

During the Imperial period (1860-1945) Indian, Ghurka and African regiments were raised by the same methods, but generally employed for the defence of British interests in their own regions -- except when the War Office needed trained soldiers elsewhere, such as South Africa (1899-1902) and France (1914-1918). That said, in the Imperial structure of the 19th century, coloured [sic] regiments never received the considerations and dignity (such as they were) extended to white regiments.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 09:50 AM

What I ment was under the control of the British Army. It wasn't at war with the Colonies itself was it?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 09:00 AM

Scaramouche - the Hessian Army never was taken into the British Army! We fought with the Brits in several wars, but always as an independent reinforcement under our own officers and commanders.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 08:41 AM

Don't forget England's "Herring War" in the 16th Century.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 04:15 AM

Ron - my contribution was based on the story an old friend (RIP) told me, whose ancestors had been peasants and then - snap - suddenly they were all on universities. "We never could have turned to an academic family, if my great-grandfather hadn't saved so much from his British pay in the Americas" he told me.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 04:12 AM

Yes, but they were for the war taken into the Royal Army.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: The Walrus
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 03:43 AM

"...Wasn't a multinational force, it was the Royal Army which was undiscrimanitng about where it recruited and who it hired..."

I think you'll fine that it WAS a multinational force:

The Army consisted of British (Including Ireland<1>) born British and American born British (including Canada) serving in the regular forces.
America Loyalist forces.
possibly Hanovarians (George III was heredetary 'Elector' of Hanover) forces.
German forces hired as complete forces from the various German princlings (Complete battalions as 'mercenary' forces).

As each little German state ('Lande'?) was a seperate state, surely that makes it a multinational force.

W

<1> Or bearing in mind the way "Sjt Want" and "Sjt Hunger" recruited - especially from Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 02:52 PM

Since the internut forced people like me to pay more attention to trying to hunt and peck at a reasonable speed than worry about nitpickers being upset if I spell a few words rong.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 02:43 PM

I'm not sure that I understand any of this, but since when was 'independence' spelled with an 'a'?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 06:04 AM

Wasn't a multinational force, it was the Royal Army which was undiscrimanitng about where it recruited and who it hired.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: LadyJean
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 10:32 PM

Hving nothing to do with Iceland or fishing, a great many American families claim descent from member's of Britain's multinational force, who decided they liked the U.S. just fine, and stuck around.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: skarpi
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 07:38 PM

What did Canada do they stopped all fhising for many years and
we did that also for few years and build up new fhisingsystem
wich are working (almost)I was just a shild when all this happen´t
I know we put out our border but was it right to do or not
thats a matter wich the politics have to solve.
Was right or wrong ??don´t know
anyway all the best Skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 07:36 PM

If the UK had unilaterally extended its internationally recognised three mile limit to the extent that Iceland did, we would have had fishing rights for lakes and rivers the other side of St. Omer in Northern France..

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 06:25 PM

I thought it was part of an international treaty which attempted to stem the tide of overfishing of certain stocks. Ask the Portuguese... we Canucks have some of their ships at dockside in Halifax at present. Of course, we would never attempt to ram a ship of the British Navy in the bow with the broadside of our little coast guard vessels as these rogue Icelanders have done. Tsk. Tsk. For shame!

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 06:12 PM

Cod war was an unlawful and unilateral purported annexation by Iceland of international water.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: skarpi
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 01:04 PM

We called it the Codwar and it where from 1972-1976

Slán ,
Skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 12:32 PM

And they/we are at it again! Tony Blair having scuppered the EU budget deal giving lots of lovely Euros to Eastern Europe, now says it was all a mistake and he really wanted to reform the CAP and other things to make the EU better.

Yeah right!