UK General Election 2017

[Pannonian]

If I was Corbyn, I would enact an old skool purge of the blairites. Well at least get a few of them deselected and have the rest kiss the sword.

Have you watched The Wilderness Years yet? Corbyn is in it.

[Beskar]

And you're wrong, we're not part of the Union - we're part of England - and so is Cornwall whether they like it or not.

That is like me saying "We are posting on The Org" and you turn around saying "you're wrong, we're not part of The Org - we're part of the Backroom".

[Pannonian]

And Corbyn has confirmed and asserted his hard Brexit position, sacking a number of shadow ministers who voted in favour of an amendment demanding a soft Brexit.

[rory_20_uk]

And Corbyn has confirmed and asserted his hard Brexit position, sacking a number of shadow ministers who voted in favour of an amendment demanding a soft Brexit.

Good. It'd be nice to act like a sovereign state rather than a unit of land vying for more money.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is like me saying "We are posting on The Org" and you turn around saying "you're wrong, we're not part of The Org - we're part of the Backroom".

No, because the Org is a Unitary Website.

Ireland is a different country to England, the Union is of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To describe Devon-and-Cornwall as "part of the Union" is to make a category error.

I will not condone harm to the common weel for narrow regional reasons.

[Montmorency]

No, because the Org is a Unitary Website.

Ireland is a different country to England, the Union is of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To describe Devon-and-Cornwall as "part of the Union" is to make a category error.

I will not condone harm to the common weel for narrow regional reasons.

Is it valid to make a persistent distinction for this phrasing between the individual legal components of the Union and their substantive territorial scope?

For example, is Cornwall "within" the Union?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is it valid to make a persistent distinction for this phrasing between the individual legal components of the Union and their substantive territorial scope?

For example, is Cornwall "within" the Union?

Cornwall was part of Wessex before England existed, then Wessex became England, then England was united with Wales, then Scotland was united with those two, then Ireland was united with Great Britain.

Cornwall is, therefore, not a constituent part of the "United Kingdom" and to describe it as such is a classification error.

[Pannonian]

Is it valid to make a persistent distinction for this phrasing between the individual legal components of the Union and their substantive territorial scope?

For example, is Cornwall "within" the Union?

Cornwall has been part of England before there was even an England. The last time it had a semi-separate identity was when England was still proto-England. By the time of Alfred, it had already been folded into the English realm. The last time Cornwall had a recognisably separate scope was when the Saxons were still the Saxons, and the Britons were still the Britons, holed up in Dumnonia and the lands of the Cymru. If you want to talk about Cornwall having a legal status inside the Union, you might as well talk about the legal status of the Saxon Coasts as well, as that's the last time they were separate.

[Montmorency]

Cornwall was part of Wessex before England existed, then Wessex became England, then England was united with Wales, then Scotland was united with those two, then Ireland was united with Great Britain.

Cornwall is, therefore, not a constituent part of the "United Kingdom" and to describe it as such is a classification error.

Doesn't address my question. I would say that while Cornwall is not a constituent of the Treaty of Union, it is a constituent of one of the constituents of the Treaty of Union, and so as a subset of that constituent is indeed "a part of" (or similar designation) the UK. Just as both the city of New York and the State of New York are part of the United States, even though New York City is neither a founding member nor a state member at all.

[Montmorency]

Cornwall has been part of England before there was even an England. The last time it had a semi-separate identity was when England was still proto-England. By the time of Alfred, it had already been folded into the English realm. The last time Cornwall had a recognisably separate scope was when the Saxons were still the Saxons, and the Britons were still the Britons, holed up in Dumnonia and the lands of the Cymru. If you want to talk about Cornwall having a legal status inside the Union, you might as well talk about the legal status of the Saxon Coasts as well, as that's the last time they were separate.

Nah, we're talking about whether it's correct, for example, to say that "London is a part of the United Kingdom" or "the Union".

It's a terrible thing to have to discuss but we're here.

[Pannonian]

Nah, we're talking about whether it's correct, for example, to say that "London is a part of the United Kingdom" or "the Union".

It's a terrible thing to have to discuss but we're here.

Start by discussing things in the correct language. The last time Cornwall was a separate entity, what we call England was split up into a number of kingdoms, with each king barely ruling what we would now term a county. The Union was a union between two states, England and Scotland. By that point, Cornwall had not been an independent entity for a thousand years. Cornwall only has a separate geographical status for administrative reasons. As a realm, which predates what you might recognise as a state, it is inseparable from "England". Start by recognising that not all the world fits into American conceptions of states, laws and rights.

Do we talk about the legal status of Islington North within the Union? No, because Islington North is part of England, and only exists as an entity for administrative reasons.

[Montmorency]

it is inseparable from "England".

So it is part of England, correct? Which is in turn, part of the Union...

[Pannonian]

So it is part of England, correct? Which is in turn, part of the Union...

So why are you trying to talk about Cornwall's legal status instead of England's legal status? That is, apart from trying to be a smart arse.

[Montmorency]

So why are you trying to talk about Cornwall's legal status instead of England's legal status? That is, apart from trying to be a smart arse.

I'm not talking about legal status. PVC took issue with some semantics in Beskar's post, and I disputed his interpretation.

I hope you don't think I'm saying Cornwall should secede or whatever it is that concerns you. So yes, we're being smart-arses.

[Beskar]

By Union, I was using short-hand of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" the name of our nation. The territories of Cornwall, Devon and Northern Ireland all fall within these boundaries. I was not discussing legal entities or countries which consist of the union, but the territories that do.

An example of a territory that doesn't would be the Isle of Mann or the Channel Islands (Crown dependencies, not part of the United Kingdom), neither of these are however being discussed.

The fact there is even an argument is at best, pedant, at worst, foolish.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Doesn't address my question. I would say that while Cornwall is not a constituent of the Treaty of Union, it is a constituent of one of the constituents of the Treaty of Union, and so as a subset of that constituent is indeed "a part of" (or similar designation) the UK. Just as both the city of New York and the State of New York are part of the United States, even though New York City is neither a founding member nor a state member at all.

With respect, I addressed your question - you just didn't understand the answer.

Nah, we're talking about whether it's correct, for example, to say that "London is a part of the United Kingdom" or "the Union".

It's a terrible thing to have to discuss but we're here.

London is part of England - and the capital of the UK as a whole. If you disassembled the Union into its Constituent parts London would still be part of England. So, no, London is not "A part of the Union" although you might colloquially say it "belonged to the Union" in a greater sense.

So it is part of England, correct? Which is in turn, part of the Union...

It is not "A part of the Union" in the same way as Northern Ireland. Remember, Northern Ireland is a separate country and not a region of the UK.

I'm not talking about legal status. PVC took issue with some semantics in Beskar's post, and I disputed his interpretation.

I hope you don't think I'm saying Cornwall should secede or whatever it is that concerns you. So yes, we're being smart-arses.

In politics, especially identity politics, semantics are important. Are you aware that there is actually a Cornish secessionist movement?

Beskar was comparing Devon-and-Cornwall which is a loosely concepted region that possibly doesn't include all of Cornwall, possibly includes the Scillies, with Northern Ireland which is a separate country. If you refer back to Beskar's post he says "Devon and Cornwall" which are two counties in South-Western England and may or may not be the same as "Devon-and-Cornwall".

By Union, I was using short-hand of "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" the name of our nation. The territories of Cornwall, Devon and Northern Ireland all fall within these boundaries. I was not discussing legal entities or countries which consist of the union, but the territories that do.

An example of a territory that doesn't would be the Isle of Mann or the Channel Islands (Crown dependencies, not part of the United Kingdom), neither of these are however being discussed.

The fact there is even an argument is at best, pedant, at worst, foolish.

Cornwall is a Duchy (which currently functions as a County), Devon is a County and Northern Ireland is a Country. Devon-and-Cornwall is a region. For extra complexity, Cornwall technically includes large swathes of Devon as part of the Duchy.

You are comparing Apples and Oranges, possibly because you do not live here.

Please, though, tell people in the other parts of the UK how to conceive of their identity, see how far it gets you in a pub down here.

[Montmorency]

With respect, I addressed your question - you just didn't understand the answer.



London is part of England - and the capital of the UK as a whole. If you disassembled the Union into its Constituent parts London would still be part of England. So, no, London is not "A part of the Union" although you might colloquially say it "belonged to the Union" in a greater sense.



It is not "A part of the Union" in the same way as Northern Ireland. Remember, Northern Ireland is a separate country and not a region of the UK.



In politics, especially identity politics, semantics are important. Are you aware that there is actually a Cornish secessionist movement?

Beskar was comparing Devon-and-Cornwall which is a loosely concepted region that possibly doesn't include all of Cornwall, possibly includes the Scillies, with Northern Ireland which is a separate country. If you refer back to Beskar's post he says "Devon and Cornwall" which are two counties in South-Western England and may or may not be the same as "Devon-and-Cornwall".



Cornwall is a Duchy (which currently functions as a County), Devon is a County and Northern Ireland is a Country. Devon-and-Cornwall is a region. For extra complexity, Cornwall technically includes large swathes of Devon as part of the Duchy.

You are comparing Apples and Oranges, possibly because you do not live here.

Please, though, tell people in the other parts of the UK how to conceive of their identity, see how far it gets you in a pub down here.

PVC, this just doesn't contradict what I have said.

London or Cornwall are part of the Union in the same way that Northern Ireland or England are part of the Union - territoriality and physically - AND the latter are part of the Union in an additional way that the former are not, namely being legal entities within the Union, or "separate countries" as you say. The fact that separate countries are constituent of the whole in BOTH ways is precisely what allows an individual country's components to in turn "be a part of" that whole. That Cornwall is a part of the Union is wholly dependent on England being a part of the Union, but not vice versa.

It is possible for an entity to have more than one logical status at a time. Identity has nothing to do with it.

[Sarmatian]

And here I was thinking us southeastern Europeans are complicated with what's a part of what.

[Pannonian]

PVC, this just doesn't contradict what I have said.

London or Cornwall are part of the Union in the same way that Northern Ireland or England are part of the Union - territoriality and physically - AND the latter are part of the Union in an additional way that the former are not, namely being legal entities within the Union, or "separate countries" as you say. The fact that separate countries are constituent of the whole in BOTH ways is precisely what allows an individual country's components to in turn "be a part of" that whole. That Cornwall is a part of the Union is wholly dependent on England being a part of the Union, but not vice versa.

It is possible for an entity to have more than one logical status at a time. Identity has nothing to do with it.

How is Cornwall's legal status separate from that of England? Cornwall has been part of England since before there was any question of any kind of legal status, back in the days when we talked about "authority", not "status". Back in the days when local rulers raised forces to support a High King because the latter was strong enough to organise them against an outside threat.

And here I was thinking us southeastern Europeans are complicated with what's a part of what.

It's only complicated when Americans try to force their conceptions on things they don't understand. At least my Anglocentrism is based on my acknowledgement that there are many things I don't fully understand, and I try to understand it through my imperfect prism. Like I said, MM might as well talk about the legal status of Islington North within the Union. That too exists for administrative purposes, and might well be dissolved when administrative reasons demand it.

[Idaho]

Wow. Some burning issues going down. Cornish secession. Lol

[Pannonian]

Idaho, where do you stand on Brexit? Inside the single market or outside?

[Idaho]

Idaho, where do you stand on Brexit? Inside the single market or outside?

I have a whole list of issues with the EU. It's undemocratic, it's neo liberal, it's corrupt, etc. However brexit as it stands its ridiculous. Its like complaining that your landlord is bad and your house has a load of problems - so you are going to move out and sleep in the park.

[Pannonian]

I have a whole list of issues with the EU. It's undemocratic, it's neo liberal, it's corrupt, etc. However brexit as it stands its ridiculous. Its like complaining that your landlord is bad and your house has a load of problems - so you are going to move out and sleep in the park.

I've already noticed the decreased spending power of the pound, both in terms of smaller quantities here and lower exchange rate when I want to buy from overseas. So, inside the single market or outside?

[Beskar]

Please, though, tell people in the other parts of the UK how to conceive of their identity, see how far it gets you in a pub down here.

Except this has nothing to do with Identity in the slightest...
Though, in your hypothetical pub, I think people in the pub would be cheering when I agree with them that they should get extra money.

London is part of England - and the capital of the UK as a whole. If you disassembled the Union into its Constituent parts London would still be part of England. So, no, London is not "A part of the Union" although you might colloquially say it "belonged to the Union" in a greater sense.

This is basically what I said.

It's only complicated when Americans try to force their conceptions on things they don't understand.

This is not the case. It is Philippus getting super-pedantic storm-in-teacup grade over the idea where I agreed that his local area should get more investment, due to him discussing that it is historically under-invested. He has somehow managed to turn a comment where agreeing to extra money for his area into a quagmire where apparently agreeing that people should receive extra money would result in me getting beaten up by them for offending their identity in a local pub.

For our international friends, Storm-in-teacup = an idiom meaning a small event that has been exaggerated out of proportion

[Gilrandir]

For our international friends, Storm-in-teacup = an idiom meaning a small event that has been exaggerated out of proportion

Do you believe any international friend is still following your discussion?

[Beskar]

Do you believe any international friend is still following your discussion?

This reply denotes 1, Monty is 2, Sammy is 3...

[Greyblades]

So, inside the single market or outside?

By inside the single market do you mean retaining pre-brexit tariff levels with european markets or do you mean having to conform to EU rules when dealing with the rest of the world?

[Idaho]

By inside the single market do you mean retaining pre-brexit tariff levels with european markets or do you mean having to conform to EU rules when dealing with the rest of the world?

Good question. Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day ;)

[Husar]

This reply denotes 1, Monty is 2, Sammy is 3...

I scrolled down until I saw a different avatar, just saying.

[Fragony]

By inside the single market do you mean retaining pre-brexit tariff levels with european markets or do you mean having to conform to EU rules when dealing with the rest of the world?

What would you do, the EU is nothing but a hindrance for your trade, with the bonus of being bossed by a plumb ex-stasi eastblock farmhorse and a serial-alcoholic who just can't help wet kissing people

I hope my comptent is sufficiantly obvious