The American Thinker
James Lewis
January 21, 2005

America may soon lose its most trusted ally in the world. Britain is on the verge of surrendering to the European Union. It is an historic moment that should be showing up in blaring headlines — but it is slipping in so quietly that only a few people have talked about it: Margaret Thatcher, George Will, Mark Steyn, Peter Hitchens. There are books with about it with titles like The Rape of the Constitution, The Abolition of Britain, and America Alone. Those warnings should be taken seriously, but Washington seems to live in blissful ignorance.

In a matter of months Britain will hold a referendum on the EU Constitution. If that Constitution passes, the Anglo-American alliance will soon be history. Along with it will go the common defense of a democratic West. (See my previous AT essay on "The Rise of EuroNationalism,")

To understand Britain’s looming precipitous decline, imagine Hillary Clinton being elected President of the US, backed by a two-thirds Democrat majority in Congress. Add the highest level of Political Correctness ever seen, including criminal penalties for anybody who speaks words that offend victim groups. Mix in a culture of government dependency for every single person. Give Dan Rather and CBS a monopoly over the broadcast media, and let Jimmy Carter run our foreign policy. Finally, let Mexico and Canada decree half of our domestic regulations. That is the mind-boggling situation Britain faces today. The EU Constitution will lock in Britain’s decline and subordination to the European Union.

Full article: http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4199

Can you shed any light on this, Philbo (or fellow Britons)? I don't know how true this is.  ???

I do know that Britain seems to be torn between the EU and the US at the moment.

Bob.. jump ship.. the PC Mob have already sold the farm and we will soon be part of the united states of Europe.. well screw that i'd rather be part of some real united states than some hokey ones.

Yes eventually (although not for at least 10 years IMO) we will become essentailly just a branch of 'Europe'

Of course it could all fail but i can't see that happening for 3 main reasons..

1) We will most likely have a Labour government for at least another 5 years and with the majority they are likely to have they will get what they want through what is essentaily a totally partizan Parliament.

2) We do actually have a very Liberal PC media in the UK (as opposed to the made up Liberal Media in America) who when the time comes will support the government and push for us to join up with Europe fully.

and finnaly.. 3) All of the big companies (who face it run the whole world) have everything to gain and nothing to lose by us becoming a branch of Europe.. they will decide the future.. so we are screwd.

America won't by defenition(typo) lose the UK as an Ally.. more the alliance will be somewhat watered down and subdued.

It is an awful situation that we have allowed ourselves to slip in to and it is very much near impossible to get out of it.. if we pull out of the EU and other european body's we are screwed.. (trade etc) and if we stay in we are.. it's a lose lose situation.. but please don't forget.. at least this way we aren't victimising the other Europeans and being.. ohmigosh dare i say Politically Un-Correct.

Gah it makes me wanna climb the bell tower with the rifle

So you are saying that us joining the EU will become inevitable? Hmm! I'm not too sure I like that thought.

Well don't take everything i say as done.. that is just IMO... but i can't see anything different happening

Well don't take everything i say as done.. that is just IMO... but i can't see anything different happening


I know that Blair is keen for the whole thing to happen. It may be just a matter of time - it may happen before the issue of global warming is raised with Bush.

England may not join the EU, but it's not looking good.  It looks like the first step towards globalization.

I can't find any polls on the subject, but the article says it's a referendum.  Does that referendum need a simple majority, a two-thirds majority, a three-fourths majority or what?  What percentage of the British public supports joining the crap-hole known as the EU?

I can't find any polls on the subject, but the article says it's a referendum.  Does that referendum need a simple majority, a two-thirds majority, a three-fourths majority or what?  What percentage of the British public supports joining the crap-hole known as the EU?


The last time the referendum came out for EU. The public said no to EU. I believe the sentiments are still the same. I just get this feeling that the other countries of Europe are bullying/forcing Britain into a political pact.

Eventually (and it is just a matter of when more than if) it will be forced through.. this Government has a knack for forgetting what the public wants

Eventually (and it is just a matter of when more than if) it will be forced through.. this Government has a knack for forgetting what the public wants


It's the same over here in a lot of ways.  On the federal level it's illegal immigration, which most Americans are against.  But neither the republicans nor the democrats will get the courage to secure our northern and especially southern borders from illegal aliens.

On the state issue all you have to do is look at the flag issue here in the state of Georgia, and the gay marriage issue in Massachusetts.  Both cases, the government and/or the courts basically told the will of the majority of the people "screw you." 

It's like we don't have a congress, but a house of lords.

Actually the house of Lords generally just try and stop any sort of change it is Parliament that is the problem at the moment.. the current Parliament is so Partizan it is not funny.. power has become so centralised here.

Parliament is supposed to act like Congress however it isn't.. the Executive branch of the government has basically established there power 'over' it.. which shouldn't happen and thus the current chaos we have has ensued.

KILL EM ALL!

Actually I just thought. The Queen has the power to remove the members of parliament if she so wished (being in the EU is not favourable to The Queen as this would remove her from her position). I remember she was calling lawyers last time the threat of the EU was looming near. The decision to join the EU will certainly rock Britain no doubt about it.

The decision to join the EU will certainly rock Britain no doubt about it.



Just say no to globalization.

Language has gotten mixed up here.. we are part of the EU.. it's the European Constituion that is the killer at the moment.. and that is what will lead to the USE

Yes she goes.. but the Crown no longer holds real power.. just convention keeps them there & Tourist Revenue.

To me, the referendum seems like a vote between British sovereignty and globalization.

Well Put!!!!

That's it in a nutshell.. keep our identity or keep our economic stablity and i have a feeling we are gonna be having an makeover soon.

Language has gotten mixed up here.. we are part of the EU.. it's the European Constituion that is the killer at the moment.. and that is what will lead to the USE

Yes she goes.. but the Crown no longer holds real power.. just convention keeps them there & Tourist Revenue.


Yeah. That's what I meant. European constitution.  :)

OK then.. just wanted Clarification

It's definitely approaching, that's undeniable - it's just a matter of when...

Princess Blair certainly won't call any referendum on any Euro issue just yet - he and his advisors know he wouldn't get away with it, so eventually it'll be a 'back door' thing - Gawd knows what he's signed away already...

Mind you, if it's 'harmonisation' that the EU burghers are after, it'll be interesting to see how on earth they will harmonise the legal system on a Pan-European scale - after all, if you can be banged up in Greece for jotting down a 'plane number, how's that gonna wash in the high court in say, Madrid?

It seems a colossal racket ro me - I've never quite seen what the EU manages to achieve (apart from waste a shedload of everyone's cash), so just before I get tagged with the 'Little Englander' label, or accused of reading The Sun too much, I await with baited breath what ideas or reasons the Pro-European mob can sell to me, after all, I'm here to be educated...

...and which Tone was supposed to have been doing all throughout this term...!!

Think i made the educatione ducation education point somewhere else.. Well said Paul.

Let's all read the Mail & Throw stones at Ferry's.

I remember reading that the EU spent nearly £3,000,000 deciding what extension numbers to use on the phones in there big uber offices.

Yeah.. what a great bunch to have running the country.

The last time the referendum came out for EU. The public said no to EU. I believe the sentiments are still the same. I just get this feeling that the other countries of Europe are bullying/forcing Britain into a political pact.

er... there has only been one referendum on the EU, back when Ted Heath was PM: we (I use the term loosely - I would have been eight or nine at the time) voted to stay in the EU (ol' Ted was a fairly wiley sort, and this might have been concocted with Wilson who was also pro-Europe: knowing that opinion in this country was fairly evenly split, we joined the EEC as it was then, then had a referendum to decide whether we should stay).  The UK *is* a member of the EU - so far we've not joined the Euro, the single European currency, and the way the UK and EU economies are at the moment, we won't even consider joining for at least a dozen years or more - there's no evidence of any kind of economic convergence, and without some similarity in economic conditions, joining the Euro would be a bit of a catastrophic wrench to the economy.


Actually the house of Lords generally just try and stop any sort of change it is Parliament that is the problem at the moment.. the current Parliament is so Partizan it is not funny.. power has become so centralised here.

No, the real power of the Lords is in considering and modifying legislation before it hits the statute books - when they try and stop it, the Commons (especially given the majority that Blair has at the moment) can force legislation through using the Parliament act, which basically says that if the Lords bar a bill which has had Commons assent twice, the Commons can vote it through without the assent of the Lords - this doesn't happen very often, though.  Usually, when it does happen, it's an example of bad legislation from the Commons - such as the Poll Tax in Maggie's day.. I'm trying to think of any bills forced through by Blair using the Parliament Act - I know there's been the threat a few times, but I'm not sure if it's been used.


America may soon lose its most trusted ally in the world. Britain is on the verge of surrendering to the European Union.
...
In a matter of months Britain will hold a referendum on the EU Constitution. If that Constitution passes, the Anglo-American alliance will soon be history. Along with it will go the common defense of a democratic West. (See my previous AT essay on "The Rise of EuroNationalism,")

This person obviously hasn't read the EU Constitution.  What he's written is basically waffle based on hearsay and speculation.  Especially as if there were a referendum in the next few months, the overwhelmingly ignorant electorate here would vote against it anyway ('cause they've not read the EU constitution, either).

Britain ain't going to be "surrendering" to anyone, let alone the EU.

If America loses its "most trusted ally", it's going to be because of the behaviour of the current US administration, nothing to do with Europe.  We were dragged into an asinine war (by a PM who should have known better) - a war that was opposed by nearly 90% of the British population, which put them much more in tune with the European continent than the American one.

But even that's speculation: we're British/English/Scots/Welsh/N.Irish... even as part of the EU this doesn't change.



Actually I just thought. The Queen has the power to remove the members of parliament if she so wished (being in the EU is not favourable to The Queen as this would remove her from her position). I remember she was calling lawyers last time the threat of the EU was looming near. The decision to join the EU will certainly rock Britain no doubt about it.
No, she doesn't - the one thing she theoretically has the power to do is dissolve parliament (though I'm not sure if even this requires a vote in parliament first)


To me, the referendum seems like a vote between British sovereignty and globalization.

Not exactly - the EU consititution does not cede any extra powers to Europe that have not already been granted by the major treaties of Rome and Maastricht; it does try and formalize some EU-wide organizations (such as having a foreign policy for the EU as a whole - this does not, however, replace the policies of the individual countries if they want to go a different way).  It also tries to define more precisely what powers individual governments have within an expanding EU, and where governments should have absolute say.

The EU is looking to expand, and the current mishmash of treaties would make that an organizational nightmare (hell, it's bad enough as things stand) - the constitution document is an attempt to rationalize the existing arrangements much more than it is to create a European superstate.


...damn, people keep replying, so this keeps getting longer and longer...


Princess Blair certainly won't call any referendum on any Euro issue just yet - he and his advisors know he wouldn't get away with it, so eventually it'll be a 'back door' thing - Gawd knows what he's signed away already...

Well, so far Tony has signed away sod all when compared to what Thatcher and Major did... but there'll be no signing up to the EU constitution without a referendum - all three parties have explicitly said that, so it'd be hard to slip something that high-profile in through the back door.


It seems a colossal racket ro me - I've never quite seen what the EU manages to achieve (apart from waste a shedload of everyone's cash)

It's achieved its primary objective...

My biggest complaint about the EU is that its systems are hopelessly flawed: if often tries to do the right thing, but ends up mired in bureaucracy, incompetence and corruption.  But that's a different topic altogether.


I remember reading that the EU spent nearly £3,000,000 deciding what extension numbers to use on the phones in there big uber offices.

You may well have read that - it's probably rubbish, though (as are nearly all of the EU urban legends).

Good objective points as always, phil...

Your point about the bureaucracy, incompetence and corruption are the primary reasons why many people are so skeptical...

And, rightly or wrongly, that's the group you'll find me lodged firmly in...

er... there has only been one referendum on the EU, back when Ted Heath was PM: we (I use the term loosely - I would have been eight or nine at the time) voted to stay in the EU (ol' Ted was a fairly wiley sort, and this might have been concocted with Wilson who was also pro-Europe:

Oh right. It must have been some big public poll or something.

No, she doesn't - the one thing she theoretically has the power to do is dissolve parliament (though I'm not sure if even this requires a vote in parliament first)

Excuse the ignorance but was is 'disolving parliament'?

Ok i will be quick cus my eyes hurt and i wanna go to bed.

Although yes some of your points are good (as per usual Philbo) I must disagree with some.. although we remain english, scottish etc we essentailly just become Europeans. This is my first big problem. WE ARE NOTHING LIKE 'THEM'.

We are an Island nation and as such have been somewhat isolated from the rest of Europe and as such have arrived at a very different place.

Bliar is useing the Parliament act to push through the Foxhunting bill..

And one final thing.. don't read the EU Constitution.. we had to read a lot in Politics Class when i 'was' doing my A-Levels and my god it is incomprehensible. Just for a comparison, you Yanks try and read the PATRIOT act.. it reads like that. Any Burberry kitted oaf's head would explode after the first paragraph.

Excuse the ignorance but was is 'disolving parliament'?


Sadly, it doesn't involve putting all our MP's into a vat of battery acid - but it's the proper phrase for terminating the Government and its mandate in mid-term...

Sadly, it doesn't involve putting all our MP's into a vat of battery acid - but it's the proper phrase for terminating the Government and its mandate in mid-term...


So like putting the government on hold, so to speak?

I prefer your first suggestion. John George Haigh had the right idea - he just did it to the wrong people.  ;D

 Especially as if there were a referendum in the next few months, the overwhelmingly ignorant electorate here would vote against it anyway ('cause they've not read the EU constitution, either).



So the people who don't want to adopt the EU constitution are ignorant?

As for us in America, we're having a hard enough time fighting the invasion coming from our borders.  Millions of illegals coming in illegally from Mexico every year, Fox (the President of Mexico) won't do anything about it, Bush won't do anything about it, and the democrats and some of the republicans in both the US House and the US Senate won't do anything about it.

Then we have Canada.  A real movement in Canada especially among British Columbia and Albertia (spelled right?,) to dump Canada and become the 51st US state.  Hell no.

Excuse the ignorance but was is 'disolving parliament'?

Basically what happens before a general election - several things can dissolve parliament: the government, when calling an election; after a successful vote of no confidence in the government... I think the Queen has that power, too.  But I'm not sure.  Afterwards, an election must be held before parliament can reconvene.


Good objective points as always, phil...

:D


Your point about the bureaucracy, incompetence and corruption are the primary reasons why many people are so skeptical...

It annoys me, to be honest - I would be very strongly pro-European if they could get these sorts of problems sorted, but there seems to be no real political will to do so, either in Europe or in any of the individual countries.  So I'm left wanting to argue in favour of Europe as an institution, but unable to do so :(


Bliar is useing the Parliament act to push through the Foxhunting bill..

D'Oh!  I guess I overlooked that one 'cause it seems too trivial a reason to use something as constitutionally significant as the Parliament Act.  Never understood why hunting is such an emotive issue for some people.


And one final thing.. don't read the EU Constitution.. we had to read a lot in Politics Class when i 'was' doing my A-Levels and my god it is incomprehensible. Just for a comparison, you Yanks try and read the PATRIOT act.. it reads like that. Any Burberry kitted oaf's head would explode after the first paragraph.

:D

IKWYM about reading the EU constitution - I tried and gave up on the original text, and have trusted the BBC's summary instead.


So the people who don't want to adopt the EU constitution are ignorant?

The overwhelming majority of the population are ignorant of what the constitution actually says: the ones who have made up their minds have usually done so based upon what a particular pressure group or newpaper says.  Certainly the Daily Mail has thrown up an inordinate amount of Europhobic bullsheesh, which can be shown to be such by anyone with half a mind and the inclination... but if they had those, they probably wouldn't be reading the Mail in the first place.

Bliar is useing the Parliament act to push through the Foxhunting bill..



Blair is the one trying to take away peoples' right to hunt, something very popular in Britain?  Or is it the other way around?

I'm glad my right to hunt is still with me in the state of Georgia, USA.

Blair is the one trying to take away peoples' right to hunt, something very popular in Britain? Or is it the other way around?

Blair isn't really that keen on the bill, but the majority of his backbenchers want it: basically, it outlaws hunting with dogs.  This is very popular with a minority of people in Britain, who have spent the last few years telling lots of extreme porkies about how the countryside will fall apart if hunting is banned.  I dislike hunting, and the incredible arrogance that seems to go with it, but the foxhunting bill has been a staggering waste of parliamentary time.  However, there are an equally voceferous minority who want it banned... these are in the ascendancy at the moment, so it seems like hunting may well end up being a thing of the past (NB, we're not talking hunting with guns in the few cases where that's allowed - this is purely where you're chasing something, typicallly a fox, with a load of dogs who're aiming to tear the thing apart when they catch it).

(NB, we're not talking hunting with guns in the few cases where that's allowed - this is purely where you're chasing something, typicallly a fox, with a load of dogs who're aiming to tear the thing apart when they catch it).


Personally I'm a big hunter, mostly deer, but as of lately I have turned to hunting turkey, squirrels, and rabbits.  I think you're wrong about hunters being arrogant, most are poor and it makes things easier on them because it's free food (at least here in America.)  I enjoy just getting out of the house, into the woods in the rural area I live in, and hunting and fishing.  Mostly I stick to guns, primitive muzzleloaders and modern-day rifles and shotguns, but have tried bow and arrow.

I know England has pretty much banned guns, but what about bow and arrow?  Does Britain allow people to own a bow with arrows?  Can you hunt with it?

One wonders what there is to hunt in England as well.

To me, the referendum seems like a vote between British sovereignty and globalization.


Again it's isolationism for the people and governments, globalism for business.  On the Right, they hate the idea of states joining together because confederated states can rival the power of international corporations. 
I'm not saying that's the full story by any means on objections to the U.K. joining the E.U., but it is certainly a concern of international capital.  The American Right, being the lapdogs of international capital, will hate the E.U. every bit as much as they hate the United States federal governmant being sovereign over the state governments--where business is concerned, but not where gay marriage is concerned, of course.

Again it's isolationism for the people and governments, globalism for business.  On the Right, they hate the idea of states joining together because confederated states can rival the power of international corporations. 
I'm not saying that's the full story by any means on objections to the U.K. joining the E.U., but it is certainly a concern of international capital.  The American Right, being the lapdogs of international capital, will hate the E.U. every bit as much as they hate the United States federal governmant being sovereign over the state governments--where business is concerned, but not where gay marriage is concerned, of course.


Do you support globalization?

I don't know what you business talk is, I honestly don't care what Europe does.  But I am America first.  I refuse to let this country join another country and sell it's sovereignty to any other nation.  No to Europe, no to Mexico, and no to Canada.

As I made clear, I am against globalization.

And yes, I support state governments over the federal government, and I personally don't see why the left is against state governments.  They certainly don't seem to mind using state governments to ban the death penalty and allow gay marriage in certain states where they know the can win in court.  I know the left wants the government to be far away from the people as possible, but as for me, I support local governments, and the states, with a weak federal government handling the money, the military, and various other things granted to it (the federal government) by the US constitution.

I think you're wrong about hunters being arrogant, most are poor and it makes things easier on them because it's free food (at least here in America.)
The huntsmen I am talking about being arrogant are not the guys who go off into the wood with a gun or bow, but the ones who dress up in bright red livery and charge off on horseback with a pack of dogs after a fox - they tend to act as though they owned the entire countryside.. hell, some of 'em probably do ;)  "The Unspeakable In Pursuit Of The Inedible" as Oscar Wilde famously put it.


I know England has pretty much banned guns, but what about bow and arrow? Does Britain allow people to own a bow with arrows? Can you hunt with it?

One wonders what there is to hunt in England as well.

I've got half-a-dozen bows (from children's 14lb up to a beautiful 50lb recurve),  though my arrows are live-roleplay ones: big foam heads that do no damage when they hit you.  I guess hunting any of the rodent family with these would be OK, but there's restrictions from pre-mediaeval times on who's allowed to shoot deer etc.

Hunting in woodland has to be much more tightly controlled over here, as we don't have enough space - the odds of meeting someone else in the woods anywhere is fairly high (with the possible exception of the remotest Highlands in Scotland).

Well you can tell your friends that you heard it from LyricBoy.

The Eurpoean Constitution and this whole European Economic union thing will ultimately be the basis for the next major war on the European continent.  I provide no timetable, although a likely time will be whenever the next economic depression strikes a member country.

An ultranationalist politician will arise in, likely, either France or Germany, and use the EU as the scapegoat for everything that ails his country.  And the EU's rules provide a mightily abundant source of scapegoat-eligible rules.  Rules that impose "religious tolerance" and "gay tolerance" and "financial prudence" dictates upon member states.  Especially the religious and economic dictates will be used by the ultra nationalist to sell his wares.  I'm not stating any pro- or anti- positions on these issues, just stating that when an EXTERNAL ENTITY (such as the EU) attempts to usurp national laws on these hot-button issues, it becomes a bonanza for pot-stirring ultra nationalists.

And when all hell breaks loose on the continent, you can bet your bottom Euro that they will ask the USA to send in peace-keeping troops.

We already saw something like that happen with Pim Foortane in Holland.. until he was killed he was almost certianley going to be the Dutch Leader and that guy was scary.

Well you can tell your friends that you heard it from LyricBoy.

The Eurpoean Constitution and this whole European Economic union thing will ultimately be the basis for the next major war on the European continent.  I provide no timetable, although a likely time will be whenever the next economic depression strikes a member country.

An ultranationalist politician will arise in, likely, either France or Germany, and use the EU as the scapegoat for everything that ails his country.  And the EU's rules provide a mightily abundant source of scapegoat-eligible rules.  Rules that impose "religious tolerance" and "gay tolerance" and "financial prudence" dictates upon member states.  Especially the religious and economic dictates will be used by the ultra nationalist to sell his wares.  I'm not stating any pro- or anti- positions on these issues, just stating that when an EXTERNAL ENTITY (such as the EU) attempts to usurp national laws on these hot-button issues, it becomes a bonanza for pot-stirring ultra nationalists.

And when all hell breaks loose on the continent, you can bet your bottom Euro that they will ask the USA to send in peace-keeping troops.


The President of France looks like he is already trying to take control of the EU.

Then we have Canada.  A real movement in Canada especially among British Columbia and Albertia (spelled right?,) to dump Canada and become the 51st US state.  Hell no.


Those are fringe movements with little support among the populus. There is no threat there... at least at the moment.

Full article: http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4199

I wouldn't be too alarmed by this, as it's Far-Right scaremongering, and we all know how the Right like to appeal to people's base instincts to keep them scared. I think US & UK will be allies even if Bliar does drag us into the full-on European superstate; it'll be interesting to see how our relationship develops over the Iran thing, as Bliar must know he will surely be voted out at the next election if he follows Bush into another unnecessary war. At the end of the day, our 2 leaders have something vital in common, the urge to self-serve- they both want to cling to power for as long as possible. I think a 'parting of the ways' between US & UK is more likely to happen if Bush tries to enviegle Bliar into helping with the forthcoming Iran war- Bliar knows he'll be voted out if he takes part, so won't be quite so willing to offer our services. I'm sure he'd rather stay in power & hack Bush off, than lose power & keep him as a friend... :D

The huntsmen I am talking about being arrogant are not the guys who go off into the wood with a gun or bow, but the ones who dress up in bright red livery and charge off on horseback with a pack of dogs after a fox - they tend to act as though they owned the entire countryside.. hell, some of 'em probably do ;) 



Looks like John Gibson, host of the "Big Story," had a few words about this subject:

On my show Thursday, you heard FOX News' Douglas Kennedy's report on PETA and the troubles they are having once somebody turns the tables on them. It reminded me of how the PETA folks — along with some others — have managed to get fox hunting banned in Great Britain.

Of course the Brits have their hearts on their sleeves about everybody and everything: What did you do for tsunami victims today; what did you do for AIDS today, what did you do for Africa today?

This jihad was about those cute red foxes, which, it turns out, have become an enormous pest in Britain because there are no wolves around anymore to eat them.

Anyway, in the British countryside they've been hunting foxes for a long time using packs of hounds chasing the fox and a bunch of stuffy Brits on horses chasing the hounds.

And it turns out the ban wasn't so much to save the cute little fox, but to stick it to the rich people who have the money and time to saddle up and chase the dogs chasing the fox.

In Texas, where I have a small ranch, we have a coyote problem. They come around and grab your cat, or dog if they can. People try to shoot them, but they hide during the day. Or they get a donkey put it in the field and he'll chase them down and stomp them to death.

While they ban hunting foxes in Britain, in Texas the law says you can hunt and kill coyotes at any time by any means.

If an Iraqi insurgent came to Texas, I guess technically he could use his RPG to blow up coyotes and nobody would care. It would be legal.

So you were wondering about the differences between us and the Brits? Here you have it in a nutshell:

We say shoot the coyotes — use landmines if you want.

The Brits won't let you hunt a fox — not that they care about the fox, but because hunting foxes is what rich people do and so they're against it.

That's My Word.

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145637,00.html

That's exactly what it is.. The Burberry classes think that Fox Hunting is just a game for the Rich Man.. I aint rich and i have been fox hunting. It is neccisarry to keep the countryside like it is.

The hunt pay the farmers to keep hedges up, otherwise the farmers would rip the hedges out so they could have larger and more profitable fields. This in turn allows all manner of Beast and Fauna to flourish and make Britians countryside the majestic place it is.

Plus if hunting the foxes was banned, how would the farmers kill them... with posion of course, you really think they are gonna stand there all night with a gun 'just in case' a fox comes a knockin'.

In Germany fox hunting was banned.. guess what.. they have no foxes.

That's exactly what it is.. The Burberry classes think that Fox Hunting is just a game for the Rich Man.. I aint rich and i have been fox hunting. It is neccisarry to keep the countryside like it is.
Necessary?  Rubbish.  Basically it's fun for the guys (and gals) on horseback, and that's all there is to it.


The hunt pay the farmers to keep hedges up, otherwise the farmers would rip the hedges out so they could have larger and more profitable fields.

That would be news to any of the farmers I know.  I briefly joined a hunt sabs group after a friend's mother's garden was ripped to shreds when the hunt went through it, without any kind of permission, and it took the small claims court to get any damages out of them.  (I didn't stick long with the hunt saboteurs, though: possibly the only people worse than those on the horses).

But foxhunting doesn't control the fox population: many times as many foxes are killed on the roads as by hunts, and getting the occasional fox at a weekend makes zero impact on the number of them around.

I'm against legislation to ban hunting: IMO it's overkill, and a denial of freedom that the state really shouldn't be getting involved in... but I sure ain't going to do anything to support the pro-hunt lobby, partly because they on the whole do not do anything about the damage they cause (not to "the countryside", but to private land on the occasions they cross it.. or when the hounds rip some poor kiddie's pet to pieces en passent), but also 'cause they've been lying through their teeth about the effects of a hunting ban - the amount of disinformation spread has been on a par with the sort of figures the gun lobby in the US uses to justify gun ownership.

But, I do strongly believe that the hunts around the country should not be allowed to go onto any land without the owner's prior permission ("that's where the fox went" is not an excuse), and just because the local magistrate is hunting, too, shouldn't mean that they get away with causing damage to private property without proper restitution.  I'm not against hunting (incidentally, the Leicester hunt I was involved in trying to sabotage hadn't caught a fox in years, and was one of the first in the country to change to drag hunting... no, I don't think I had anything to do with that ;)), and I don't think it should be banned because some people think that foxes look cute... the one thing that does make me want to ban it is listening to the pro-hunt lobby.

Personally I hunt in camo with a gun, not ride on some horse wearing bright red, that does look stupid.  But the government has no right to do it, especially if Gibson was right in saying that foxes have become a major pest in Britain.

I agree somewhat with both of you.. when i went hunting i didn't dress up in red and tweed, i wore my normal ridin' stuff.. Chaps, Boots and something-hide jacket that i have had for years.. nobody caught a fox (fair enough) but everyone had fun and there were no up there own arse rich pricks there... you do however get those kind and i am of a 'Eat The Rich' opinion anyway so don't preach to the converted.

When they go through property that they haven't asked to be on then they should be fined.. however when they go through fields which they have paid farmers to go through then they are fully within there rights.

I don't know what kind of farmers you know but here in Leicestershire many are paid to keep up there hedges so that the hunt can jump them.. it adds to the thrill of the chase.

I agree with both the posts above, having lived in the coumtry. I think foxes are strongly akin to dogs & wolves, & will co-exist with humans. The problem is that they have a reputation for random slaughter of domestic animals, which I think is exaggerated. The only time I know foxes to attack livestock (other than in hunger) is for revenge against extermination of family members...oh dear...

I don't know what kind of farmers you know but here in Leicestershire many are paid to keep up there hedges so that the hunt can jump them.. it adds to the thrill of the chase.


And demand that land owners allow no else access at any other time.  (Not on famrs but woodland and open meadow).  Regardless of whether they intend to hunt there or not.  Locally we lost access to some woodland because the hunt pays the land owner to ride there twice a year and shoot there a few times a year.  We are now not allowed to go orienteering because the hunt has banned us.

Many huntsmen are arrogant bastards who think we should all bow down to there way of thinking.

Many huntsmen are arrogant bastards who think we should all bow down to there way of thinking.


Yup.. couldn't agree more and there should be set rules on how Hunting is conducted.. similar to the US Idea of 'Huntin season'

Karen if it is public right of way then no matter who is paying who you should still be able to go on it.

'Huntin season'



Yes.  Deer season just closed.... :(

But squirrel, rabbit, opossum, coyote, raccoon, dove, and crow seasons are still open.... :)

Karen if it is public right of way then no matter who is paying who you should still be able to go on it.


No they are not public rights of way that I am talking about.  Woodland such as that near Bradgate Park that we used to be allowed access for orienteering with the lan owners permission.  Then the hunt people wanted sole access rights so we were refused permission.  Even though the hunt would not be in the area at the time they said that no one else should be allowed in.

Another bad experience with the arrogance of hunters was in the South of England.  We were at a big orienteering event (3,000+ people) near Goodwood.  The local stag hunt were told well in advance that we would be in the area and they were asked to stay away.  Mid-morning a whole host of hounds and horses rode straight through the starting lanes.  That's why I call them Arrogant.  It was a delibrate act to show how they were 'better than us'

Yup.. it isn't too much of a suprise.. whenever you get any sort of event like The Hunt you will get the elitest element and they tend to be in charge. The times i have been out i noticed that the ones who wore the red jackets and spoke like they had a carrott in there ass were all about 70 anyway.. with any luck they'll up and die soon  :P

I found most of the rest of the people to be perfectly pleasent.. most just enjoyed ridin' there horses and found that 'The Hunt' allowed them to do it. Before somebody says you don't have to hunt to ride a horse, yes you don't but face it what would you rather do go along some crappy dirt track that the horse could hurt its self along, go on the road with Jerk offs drivin' past at 50MPH or careen across some big fields and jump over big hedges..