World Politics - Great Britain is not an Island [Archive]

Louis VI the Fat

11-17-2008, 18:16

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon4.gif Warning! EU talk! https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/icons/icon4.gif

I decided to stick to economics in the 'The UK should adopt the Euro now!' thread. I'll move the politics here. As this thread tackles some long held erroneous beliefs about the UK, I thought it might be fun to get more non-EU members to wage in with their opinion too.

Some cold hard facts about great Britain that strive to dispell some myths:

1 - Great Britain is not an island.

Because every place in Britain is within virtual walking distance of the sea, Britain is the least insular country of Europe. Since antiquity it has been commonly understood that an inland country is inward, isolated from foreign events, singular. Whereas naval countries are open, international. Sparta understood this. That's why inland Sparta was so unique amongst the many Greek island and coastal states. Plato understood this too, that's why he proposed that his ideal country be situated far from sea, lest it lose its unique character to foreign influence.
British national folklore holds that Britain that Britain is an only half European country, in many ways singular. Nothing, of course, could be farther from the truth. Linguistically, politically, etnically the UK is an amalgam of the countries that border it on the sea, from Spain to Norway.
Seas, in the past even more so then now, are not a barrier but a highway. As late as 1800, it took six hours to travel from Calais to London by boat, and three weeks to travel from Calais overland to the South of France. Forests and mountains are barriers. Not Seas.

Of all the countries in Europe, the UK is the most European and the one with the least insular history.

2 - Britain is historically a poor country. The EU has been essential in aiding the UK to develop into an above average performing economy.

The UK was a poor country when it joined the EU. In 1973, the UK was second from below in GDP per capita. Second only to Ireland. Well below that Italy. For most of the UK's membership, Italy has been a wealthier nation than Britain. Of the 35 years of UK membership, France has been wealthier for 26. Germany was wealthier up until reunifaction with East Germany, which ever since has structurally lowered Germany's GDP per capita. The West has been wealthier than the UK for an overwhelming period.

Access to the internal market has lifted Britain out of its economic misery of the sixties and seventies. The EU recipe proved so succesful for Britain, that after only 25 years of membership, by the end of the 1990's, Britain's GDP per capita had risen to equal the level of the EU's core, the Rhineland countries. (France, Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands)
Like Italy, Spain and Ireland, the UK is one of the EU's great economic succes stories. Poland, the Baltics, the Czech Rep look set to follow.

3 - The EU has brought stability and peace to the British Isles, nor the other way round.

When the UK joined, the EU represented stability to the UK, not the other way round. In 1973, the UK suffered from terrorism, a virtual civil war in Norn Iron, incessant strikes, social unrest and a lack of development compared to the continent.
Economic growth via the EU's internal market, and the final uplifting of Ireland from eight centuries of misery have brought peace and stability to Britain. Only since the mid 90s has Britain become a net exporter of stability.

4 - The Commonwealth does not look to the UK.

I wouldn't mind a thread asking our Australian and Canadian members if they are at all interested in the UK 'recommending its political structures for their socio-economical benefit'. Canada is North America. Oz and NZ are ever more Asian-Pacific, psychologically, economically and demographically.
The non-white Commonwealth nations, indeed, look for development partnership. However, the more a nation develops, the less it looks to Britain. The Uk holds no sway over those one billion Indians anymore. They'll play cricket matches, but that's about as far as India's identification with the UK goes.
Hong Kong and Singapore look down on Britain. The US? Could there possibly be two more different countries in the Western world than the UK and the US? They don't even share a language with Britain to begin with.

CountArach

11-17-2008, 20:40

You forgot that by owning Gibraltar they are a part of mainland Europe anyway :wink:

I lol'ed at the tags btw.

I wouldn't mind a thread asking our Australian and Canadian members if they are at all interested in the UK 'recommending its political structures for their socio-economical benefit'. Canada is North America. Oz and NZ are ever more Asian-Pacific, psychologically, economically and demographically.
Short answer: I couldn't give a rat's :daisy: about what the Poms get up to and I hate still being part of the Commonwealth (It makes me feel our nation is getting somewhat Patronised). Our future does not lie with Britain - it lies with Asia.

Rhyfelwyr

11-17-2008, 20:58

Britain is the leader of an empire, not some common partner in a union. :clown:

English assassin

11-17-2008, 23:29

Short answer: I couldn't give a rat's about what the Poms get up to and I hate still being part of the Commonwealth (It makes me feel our nation is getting somewhat Patronised). Our future does not lie with Britain - it lies with Asia.

Aw, shucks. And all 62 million of us were just burning up to tell you how to run your country, sweetie. We talk of nothing else.

Which one were you again?

As for the rest, if this common market is worth anything, I want some of what Louis is smoking.

JR-

11-18-2008, 00:07

Some cold hard facts about great Britain that strive to dispell some myths:

1 - Great Britain is not an island.

Because every place in Britain is within virtual walking distance of the sea, Britain is the least insular country of Europe. Since antiquity it has been commonly understood that an inland country is inward, isolated from foreign events, singular. Whereas naval countries are open, international. Sparta understood this. That's why inland Sparta was so unique amongst the many Greek island and coastal states. Plato understood this too, that's why he proposed that his ideal country be situated far from sea, lest it lose its unique character to foreign influence.
British national folklore holds that Britain that Britain is an only half European country, in many ways singular. Nothing, of course, could be farther from the truth. Linguistically, politically, etnically the UK is an amalgam of the countries that border it on the sea, from Spain to Norway.
Seas, in the past even more so then now, are not a barrier but a highway. As late as 1800, it took six hours to travel from Calais to London by boat, and three weeks to travel from Calais overland to the South of France. Forests and mountains are barriers. Not Seas.

Of all the countries in Europe, the UK is the most European and the one with the least insular history.

2 - Britain is historically a poor country. The EU has been essential in aiding the UK to develop into an above average performing economy.

The UK was a poor country when it joined the EU. In 1973, the UK was second from below in GDP per capita. Second only to Ireland. Well below that Italy. For most of the UK's membership, Italy has been a wealthier nation than Britain. Of the 35 years of UK membership, France has been wealthier for 26. Germany was wealthier up until reunifaction with East Germany, which ever since has structurally lowered Germany's GDP per capita. The West has been wealthier than the UK for an overwhelming period.

Access to the internal market has lifted Britain out of its economic misery of the sixties and seventies. The EU recipe proved so succesful for Britain, that after only 25 years of membership, by the end of the 1990's, Britain's GDP per capita had risen to equal the level of the EU's core, the Rhineland countries. (France, Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands)
Like Italy, Spain and Ireland, the UK is one of the EU's great economic succes stories. Poland, the Baltics, the Czech Rep look set to follow.

3 - The EU has brought stability and peace to the British Isles, nor the other way round.

When the UK joined, the EU represented stability to the UK, not the other way round. In 1973, the UK suffered from terrorism, a virtual civil war in Norn Iron, incessant strikes, social unrest and a lack of development compared to the continent.
Economic growth via the EU's internal market, and the final uplifting of Ireland from eight centuries of misery have brought peace and stability to Britain. Only since the mid 90s has Britain become a net exporter of stability.

4 - The Commonwealth does not look to the UK.

I wouldn't mind a thread asking our Australian and Canadian members if they are at all interested in the UK 'recommending its political structures for their socio-economical benefit'. Canada is North America. Oz and NZ are ever more Asian-Pacific, psychologically, economically and demographically.
The non-white Commonwealth nations, indeed, look for development partnership. However, the more a nation develops, the less it looks to Britain. The Uk holds no sway over those one billion Indians anymore. They'll play cricket matches, but that's about as far as India's identification with the UK goes.
Hong Kong and Singapore look down on Britain. The US? Could there possibly be two more different countries in the Western world than the UK and the US? They don't even share a language with Britain to begin with.

1. Britain is indeed an island -

As long as there is a navy to protect trade and borders we are indeed an island.
It may take 19 minutes for a man on a jet powered batwing to cross the channel, but the resources to mount a land invasion of Britain are possessed only by the US, and they i do not fear.
And yes we are indeed an amalgam of the nations of europe, not least because we have been a refuge from chaos on the continent.
The next time armies march across europe (and there will be a next time), britain will still be a near invulnerable island, and from that refuge i would hope that we once again attempt to bring calm to the turmoil.
We do have a unique position, that has bred unique attitudes (yes; arrogance), and that does leave us options not open to the more 'neighbourly' nations of the continent.

2. Britain does not owe its wealth to the EU -

Odd that your timeline should start post world war two. At the end of the 19th century we created a greater proportion of world GDP than even america produced at the heigh of its economic power. I believe the figure was 27% of world economic output. The twentieth century saw a decline in the profitability of the empire, a fact which was followed by a wholesale mortgaging of the British economy necessary to fight WW1 and WW2. During what overwhelming period of time has the west been wealthier than Britain?

The misery of the sixties and seventies lie in no small part from divesting ourselves of empire, as well as the burdens of war loans from amercia, and in no small part flirtation with socialism that we indulged in post war; "there must be a better way...........".
Access to the single market has indeed been a benefit to the UK, free trade is indeed a jolly good thing and we'd like to see more of it, but that does not equal either the euro, or greater EU integration. Further to this, the fact remains that a majority of the value of Britain's business dealings happen outside the EU.

3. That is quite a set of statements -

You are telling me that economic output from the common market solved the problem of northern irish terrorism, and mainland UK strikes! Would you care to explain how? We had our problems and we dealt with them; the dirty war in NI followed by the Major/Blair peace process on the one hand, and Thatchers breaking of the militant unions on the other.
Let me play turn around with your assertion that social-political stability flows from the continent to the UK and not the other way around:

How successful has Britain been in the first duty of the nation state -
> How many western european countries suffered invasion in the last 1000 odd years?
> How many western european countries suffered invasion in the last 500 odd years?
> How many western european countries suffered invasion in the last 100 odd years?
> How many western european countries suffered invasion in the last 50 odd years?
> Which of the above categories apply to Britain?

How successful has Britain been in providing a stable and equitable polity -
> How many western european countries have suffered bloody revolution in the last 350 years?
> How many western european countries have even existed in their current form for the last 175 years?
> How many western european countries suffered the perils of communism?
> How many western european countries suffered the perils of facism?
> How many of the above categories apply to Britain?

How successful has Britain been in promoting sovereign stability among its neighbours -
> How many western european countries successfully fought off Napoleon?
> How many western european countries successfully fought off ye olde' Kaiser?
> How many western european countries successfully fought off Hitler?
> How many western european countries successfully kept communism contained?
> How many nations did all of this and produced none of the mentioned despots?

How much has Britain to regret with regards its colonial past in comparison to its neighbours -
> Of all the major colonial nations whose colonies have been least susceptible to civil war, those who introduced common law or those who introduced roman law? (did we leave administrative basket cases behind)
> Of all the major colonial nations whose colonies have collectively amounted to the largest proportion of global GDP in the intervening 50 years? (did we leave functioning economies behind)
> Of all the major colonial nations whose colonies have collectively amounted to the largest number of democracies by weight of population? (did we leave functioning political structures behind)
> Of all the major colonial nations which dedicated vast resources to eradicating the global slave trade and piracy? (did we leave any useful cultural legacy behind?)
> On balance, did Britain treat its colonies as a trading resource or an asset to be stripped?

Please do not give me any tosh about Britain being the net recipient of stability from the EU in particular or the continent in general.

4. The Commonwealth -

My apologies for confusion caused by my lack of clarification.
When i referred in another thread to Britains desire to assist the commonwealth by political and economic means of our own choosing as i was referring entirely to the developing portion it. Australia, Canada, NZ, and Singapore do not need Britain's help, they are perfectly adjusted sovereign nation states in their own right with all necessary means to secure their own economic, social and military independence.
We as the rich west have a duty to assist where we can (and where we are wanted), the developing nations in order that we do our bit to alleviate poverty and promote global stability. Britain has a particular duty to developing nations of the commonwealth because we saw fit to interfere in their sovereign affairs those many years ago.
I do not have some paternalistic desire to be a father figure to all those benighted little coloured people who know no better (irony alert for un-astute), what i particularly desire is that we do not continue to extend their poverty by erecting trade barriers. What i particularly loath is trade protection in basic goods at the same time as ineffective and corrupt aid programs that allow us to feel all saintly while doing the recipient an net dis-service.
That is the sum total of my views on those nations that used to be part of the empire, and i fear that my earlier statement caused you to get your knickers in a twist over my 'apparent' condescending paternalism.

So to conclude, you must try harder Louis.

Rhyfelwyr

11-18-2008, 00:27

:applause: to Furunculu

:bow:

Louis VI the Fat

11-18-2008, 01:58

I want some of what Louis is smoking.Never anything stronger than Gauloises, I'm afraid. :beatnik:

I am merely trying to get in touch with my inner Rupert Murdoch. I thought I'd take his worldview and reverse it for fun and debate. ~;)

Not that any of my statements aren't completely correct, mind.

Louis VI the Fat

11-18-2008, 02:03

twisted knickers.I was indeed inspired by the several of your posts. They didn't upset me in the slighest - I am not that prissy. If I get irritated, I'll make a cranky remark on the spot and don't open a thread about it.
No, I rather enjoy our clashes, and had hoped we could continue them here without derailing the Euro thread.

Here we go:

1. Britain is indeed an island No it isn't. Britain is fully attached to Europe. Technically, the UK's borders are made up for the most part by wide rivers indeed, which would lead some to conclude it is an island. This, I am afraid, I must deem cartographicism.

Britain is socio-geographically not an island. Never has been. Corsica is, Iceland is. A thousand tribal and backward places in Europe are or have been. Britain, never. Not since the common Celtic culture, not in the Roman period, not in the age of invasions, not later either. Britain is not an insular country and has not followed a unique historical path. The UK is not a semi-European country. In the sense of Wallerstein or Braudel, the UK has always been part of the core of Europe. The idea of a continent plus a UK is therefore a myth. Contrary to public perception, the UK is amongst the most unlikely candidates to rightfully think of itself as 'different from Europe'.

2. Britain does not owe its wealth to the EU -

1 - Odd that your timeline should start post world war two.

2 - Further to this, the fact remains that a majority of the value of Britain's business dealings happen outside the EU.1 - I could have started my timeline in 700 BC. And then wrote a hefty post about how Britain's wealth is based on the Italians. I deemed it unfair to point out that Britain has severly lagged behind Italy in GDP per capita for two thousand years. This is why I limited myself to the period of British EU membership. For this time period too, surprisingly, Italy has lead the UK in GDP per capita for longer than the reverse. Not until the early nineties did the UK overtook Italy.

2 - I am quite convinced a majority of British foreign trade is with the EU. Strangely, I can't find a link.

How successful has Britain been in the first duty of the nation state -
> How many western european countries suffered invasion in the last 1000 odd years?
Lots, including the UK
> How many western european countries suffered invasion in the last 500 odd years?
Lots, including the UK
> How many western european countries suffered invasion in the last 100 odd years?
Lots, excluding the UK.
> How many western european countries suffered invasion in the last 50 odd years?
None.
Which leaves the unfortunate period of 1900-1950 for a British exception. Or 5% of your timeline. Which I would not deem an historical exception.

How successful has Britain been in providing a stable and equitable polity -
> How many western european countries have suffered bloody revolution in the last 350 years?
Lots, including the UK
> How many western european countries have even existed in their current form for the last 175 years?
Lots - but this really depends a good deal on definition.
> How many western european countries suffered the perils of communism?
None
> How many western european countries suffered the perils of facism?
Lots, including Britain.
> How many of the above categories apply to Britain?
All? ~:confused:

How successful has Britain been in promoting sovereirn stability among its neighbours -
> How many western european countries successfully fought off Napoleon?
None. :knight:
The Russian winter and the onslaught of the Eastern Despots brought down Napoleon.
> How many western european countries successfully fought off ye olde' Kaiser?
Uhm, that depends who you mean. None in 1866-1870. Lots in 1914-1918.
> How many western european countries successfully fought off Hitler?
None.
The Russian winter and the onslaught of the Eastern Communists brought down Hitler.
> How many western european countries successfully kept communism contained?
All.
> How many nations did all of this and produced none of the mentioned despots?
I end up with 'none, none, none and all'. Which kind of renders it all moot.

The colonial questions are excellent, but really beyond the scope of this post.

4. The Commonwealth I was thinking more about the old British 'Commonwealth first' idea. The, in my eyes, unrealistic belief that the Commonwealth is where Britain's future lies.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-18-2008, 02:25

Britain is socio-geographically not an island.

Wikipedia classifies Great Britain as an island, geographically.

> How many western european countries suffered invasion in the last 1000 odd years?
Lots, including the UK
> How many western european countries suffered invasion in the last 500 odd years?
Lots, including the UK

How about successful invasion?

> How many western european countries suffered the perils of communism?
None
> How many western european countries suffered the perils of facism?
Lots, including Britain.

If you say that Britain has suffered the perils of fascism, you must also say that Germany, Spain, and perhaps France have suffered the perils of communism. :bow:

> How many western european countries successfully fought off Hitler?
None.

Well, the UK did a good job. ~;)

> How many western european countries successfully kept communism contained?
All.

By a complete technicality in how we define "Western" Europe, yes. If you count East Germany as part of the geographic Western Europe, then we cannot say that communism was successfully contained.

Yoyoma1910

11-18-2008, 02:40

Well, the UK did a good job. ~;)

By what, abandoning their allies in the begining, and then getting proped up by the Americans? The Germans had a saying, "The British will fight to the last Frenchman."

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-18-2008, 02:55

By what, abandoning their allies in the begining, and then getting proped up by the Americans? The Germans had a saying, "The British will fight to the last Frenchman."

Well, it did successfully fight off Nazi Germany. However it managed to do that, it still managed.

Incongruous

11-18-2008, 03:13

By what, abandoning their allies in the begining, and then getting proped up by the Americans? The Germans had a saying, "The British will fight to the last Frenchman."

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The Germans also believed they could conquer and hold Europe, clearly anything the Nazi's had to say about the War was bollocks. Dreamers from the get-go.

Abandoning their allies? You mean the mighty French and their mighty army? Who were incapable of action throughout the whole thing? You mean, the same Brits who declared war on Germany for its' invasion of Poland? :laugh4:

Yoyoma1910

11-18-2008, 05:58

Well, it did successfully fight off Nazi Germany. However it managed to do that, it still managed.

When did the allied forces become simply Britain? To say that is callous, and pays little respect to all those who were involved in the process. Do you really think they could have done it alone?

Yoyoma1910

11-18-2008, 06:10

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The Germans also believed they could conquer and hold Europe, clearly anything the Nazi's had to say about the War was bollocks. Dreamers from the get-go.

Abandoning their allies? You mean the mighty French and their mighty army? Who were incapable of action throughout the whole thing? You mean, the same Brits who declared war on Germany for its' invasion of Poland? :laugh4:

Your understanding of things is very thorough. Equaled only by your amount of laughter.

Incongruous

11-18-2008, 06:23

Your understanding of things is very thorough. Equaled only by your amount of laughter.

Tell me where I was wrong?

Yoyoma1910

11-18-2008, 06:39

Tell me where I was wrong?

You used laughing faces.

And also typed.

The French army, as well as the British initially failed together. Rather than, as previously agreed, offering addition help to the French, who had committed their troops to the Belgian front in an effort to stop the Germans, the British left the continent and their battered allies, which by the way were not just French. It allowed them to continue fighting, yes, but if you leave everyone else behind to face the slaughter, don't laugh at them afterward.

Would you like it if I covered Britain's own inability to effectively combat the Germans without the assistance of others?

Meneldil

11-18-2008, 07:22

Furunculu5, that's all nice and dandy, but your whole part about the colonial past of UK is kinda off, since Great Britain probably killed more people in India only than all other colonial powers in the whole world.

I wish I were in France and could link you the article written by two British historians about man-made famines in India. Sure the Brits were really nice settlers :inquisitive: (not to say that France, Germany or the US did better, but I'm just tired by the whole "British colonization was cool" fairytale).

Abandoning their allies? You mean the mighty French and their mighty army? Who were incapable of action throughout the whole thing?

Funny that you say such a thing. When the French army proposed to invade Germany in september 1939 (which it did for a brief time), the Brits responded they weren't ready for a full scale war yet. Not that a positive answer from London would have changed a lot I think, both headquarters were just too damn stupid and stuck in the WWI mindset.

But then, I wouldn't go as far as saying that Britain abandonned France or its allies. I'm pretty sure a lot of Brits died on the French soil in 1940, as well as in Poland or Norway I guess.

Banquo's Ghost

11-18-2008, 08:02

Let's get back on topic, gentlemen.

I understand the fascination for orgahs to bring all threads back to who won battles, but this is potentially fascinating thread about Britain's relationship to Europe, which Louis and Furunculu5 have developed with some challenging ideas.

The history of the continental wars is relevant, but only tangentially - and we have already descended towards blame and revisionism. I don't think many of us could stand another round of that.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

JR-

11-18-2008, 09:31

Furunculu5, that's all nice and dandy, but your whole part about the colonial past of UK is kinda off, since Great Britain probably killed more people in India only than all other colonial powers in the whole world.

I wish I were in France and could link you the article written by two British historians about man-made famines in India. Sure the Brits were really nice settlers :inquisitive: (not to say that France, Germany or the US did better, but I'm just tired by the whole "British colonization was cool" fairytale).

i don't claim that it is, but i rather dislike the careless view (not proferred from yourself) that Britain as the visible colonizing nation must manfully shoulder the blame for all the excesses of colonism, like the total rape of south america by the spanish, and the grim and nasty little belgian and portugese colonies in africa.

JR-

11-18-2008, 10:06

1 -
No it isn't. Britain is fully attached to Europe. Technically, the UK's borders are made up for the most part by wide rivers indeed, which would lead some to conclude it is an island. This, I am afraid, I must deem cartographicism.
Britain is socio-geographically not an island. Never has been. Corsica is, Iceland is. A thousand tribal and backward places in Europe are or have been. Britain, never. Not since the common Celtic culture, not in the Roman period, not in the age of invasions, not later either. Britain is not an insular country and has not followed a unique historical path. The UK is not a semi-European country. In the sense of Wallerstein or Braudel, the UK has always been part of the core of Europe. The idea of a continent plus a UK is therefore a myth. Contrary to public perception, the UK is amongst the most unlikely candidates to rightfully think of itself as 'different from Europe'.

2 -
I could have started my timeline in 700 BC. And then wrote a hefty post about how Britain's wealth is based on the Italians. I deemed it unfair to point out that Britain has severly lagged behind Italy in GDP per capita for two thousand years. This is why I limited myself to the period of British EU membership. For this time period too, surprisingly, Italy has lead the UK in GDP per capita for longer than the reverse. Not until the early nineties did the UK overtook Italy.

I am quite convinced a majority of British foreign trade is with the EU. Strangely, I can't find a link

3 -
> How many western european countries suffered invasion in the last 1000 odd years?
Lots, including the UK
> How many western european countries suffered invasion in the last 500 odd years?
Lots, including the UK
> How many western european countries suffered invasion in the last 100 odd years?
Lots, excluding the UK.
> How many western european countries suffered invasion in the last 50 odd years?
None.
Which leaves the unfortunate period of 1900-1950 for a British exception. Or 5% of your timeline. Which I would not deem an historical exception.

How successful has Britain been in providing a stable and equitable polity -
> How many western european countries have suffered bloody revolution in the last 350 years?
Lots, including the UK
> How many western european countries have even existed in their current form for the last 175 years?
Lots - but this really depends a good deal on definition.
> How many western european countries suffered the perils of communism?
None
> How many western european countries suffered the perils of facism?
Lots, including Britain.
> How many of the above categories apply to Britain?
All? ~:confused:

How successful has Britain been in promoting sovereirn stability among its neighbours -
> How many western european countries successfully fought off Napoleon?
None. :knight:
The Russian winter and the onslaught of the Eastern Despots brought down Napoleon.
> How many western european countries successfully fought off ye olde' Kaiser?
Uhm, that depends who you mean. None in 1866-1870. Lots in 1914-1918.
> How many western european countries successfully fought off Hitler?
None.
The Russian winter and the onslaught of the Eastern Communists brought down Hitler.
> How many western european countries successfully kept communism contained?
All.
> How many nations did all of this and produced none of the mentioned despots?
I end up with 'none, none, none and all'. Which kind of renders it all moot.

The colonial questions are excellent, but really beyond the scope of this post.
I was thinking more about the old British 'Commonwealth first' idea. The, in my eyes, unrealistic belief that the Commonwealth is where Britain's future lies.

1 -
You haven't actually said anything to refute the point that from a politico-military viewpoint we are indeed an island which leaves us options unavailable to our continental friends, and also tempers our attitudes.

The point about whether we are ehtnically/culturally an island is irrelevant, and already answered, what is important is that we do not really see ourselves as EUropean, which is fine with us but seems to be a big problem with you. do you need the UK to lend credibility to the euro project?

2 -
To ignore the effect of the decline of empire and two world wars is to ignore three of the largest imaginable anomolies that could effect British wealth in the last 350 years.
So having thrown off our flirtation with sixties style socialism, and having broken the soviet backed unions that were playing havoc with our economic output, our growth has bloomed.......... so what?
I do not deny the benefit of the single market, i simply do not believe free trade is such an extraordinary gift from the EU that we should join up to every federalist love-in created over the water. Free trade should be the natural state of affairs, and is even enjoyed today by some non-EU members of the european fraternity.

I said the majority of the value of British trade, given that making stuff in factories or digging it out of the ground has become kind of passe in Britain in the last 30 years.

3 -
Gee you got me, it was only 950 odd years since 1066.
The Dutch Navy burning their way up the channel is hardly an invasion (full marks to the Dutch tho).
So the German Army took some colonial territory in the world wars, that is not Britain, and the channel islands 14 miles off the french coast can hardly be counted either.
Are you including the Falklands in the last fifty years as an invasion, an island that was seven thousand miles away with a population of bugger all. does that signify anything, regardless of whether it was an unsuccessful invasion?

Gee you got me, was i out by a few years when i said 350 odd years regarding revolutions?
Have we had our nice democracy interrupted by a period of communist rule? no.
Have we had our nice democracy interrupted by a period of facist rule? no.
None. Of. Them. Apply.

So we didn't defeat Napoleon's empire on French territory and exile him to some squalid island on the far side of the world..........?
Was Britain ever conquered territory? Did a free Britain act as a base from which conquered territories could be freed from the Kaisers grasp?
You mean we didn't fight off Hitler (and yes i know we weren't alone) and in fact blighty was conquered, and i have lived unknowing in what has been for the last 50 years Vichy Britain?
My point with communism was merely add it to the list of despots and ideologies that we have fought all of and produced none of.

Given that question 3 deals with the export and import of stability it seems very valid given that many european nations had worldwide colonies and thus have exported stability/instability in awesome measures in the previous centuries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My principle point, other than refuting yours, is that Britian is indeed different in part due to our geography, it has given us some unique advantages as well as some disadvantages, and has thus come to colour our culture, society and attitudes in a way that is markedly different.
Their is no utopia in the EU, which doesn't make it by any means a bad thing, but for Britain it simply isn't considered essential to be 'in' to the same degree as you continental types.
Our trade goes overseas always and to anywhere, not next door across the autobahn.
We do not worry about about invasion because no-one can transport enough divisions across fast enough.

We have different aims and goals in life formed in part from our geography and its concomitant effect on our history.

gaelic cowboy

11-18-2008, 16:08

Our future does not lie with Britain - it lies with Asia.

Ausrailia may try to become part of Asia but it never will be seen as that by the other members of that region.
Economically it will trade with Asia but culturally it will never be Asian and when one is trying to carve a place in an pan Asian community that element of non aisianess will be an problem.

In effect the other asian countries will see oz as western they will feel ok trading with oz but not much more than that.

UK and Ireland can work in europe because we may be culturally differant but we are more simmilar than differant.

gaelic cowboy

11-18-2008, 16:24

I feel it is unlikely Britain will ever join the Euro when it is setup in the present system. Since the UK is more services orientated then services growth potential will be the only reason for joining since France and Germany are more into manufacturing the disconnect between the two will continue.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-18-2008, 21:53

When did the allied forces become simply Britain? To say that is callous, and pays little respect to all those who were involved in the process. Do you really think they could have done it alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

The Brits did hold off the German forces. :dizzy2:

Hax

11-18-2008, 21:58

I'm afraid you mixed up the meanings of Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

Great Britain is England, Wales and Scotland.

The United Kingdom consists of England, Wales, Scotland, the Island of Man, Northern Ireland and the rest of the overseas colonies.

Yoyoma1910

11-18-2008, 22:08

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

The Brits did hold off the German forces. :dizzy2:

From your own source:

International participation

Both sides received outside support during the Battle of Britain.

[edit] Allied side

Main article: Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain

The Royal Air Force roll of honour for the Battle of Britain recognises 574 non-British pilots (out of almost 3,000 in total) as flying at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the RAF or Fleet Air Arm between 10 July and 31 October 1940.[31]
126 German aircraft or "Adolfs" were claimed by pilots of 303 Squadron during the Battle.

This included 139 Poles, 98 New Zealanders, 86 Canadians, 84 Czechoslovakians, 29 Belgians, 21 Australians, 20 South Africans, 13 French, 10 Irish, and single figures from the United States of America, Jamaica, the British Mandate of Palestine, and Southern Rhodesia.

My point is, Britain does not stand alone. It has maintained its freedom because others have helped it do so. In conflict, it is therefore not an Island, working on its own, and would not have survived if it had been.

Kagemusha

11-18-2008, 22:32

Louis,surely if you are measuring countries based on GDP per capita, the Whole poor and unproductive per capita economies of EU should have been assimilated into EFTA back in turn of 90´s, rather then other way around.~;)

Evil_Maniac From Mars

11-18-2008, 22:45

My point is, Britain does not stand alone. It has maintained its freedom because others have helped it do so. In conflict, it is therefore not an Island, working on its own, and would not have survived if it had been.

Of course it isn't working entirely on its own, no nation ever does. That's not really my point...

JR-

11-18-2008, 22:57

From your own source:

My point is, Britain does not stand alone. It has maintained its freedom because others have helped it do so. In conflict, it is therefore not an Island, working on its own, and would not have survived if it had been.

this is very true, (i know two polish RAF pilots from WW2* and know of the contribution of many others), but it is completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

regardless of the fact the britain did, in concert with others, hold off and eventually defeat germany in 1945, what we are talking about is whether britain is indeed an island, and how that has effected the british mindset in such a way that we consider the EU via different criteria than 'many' continetal nations.

* he came from a part of poland that got annexed by russia into belo-russia (sp?), and after the end of the war he could not return to his homeland because he would have been shot as a traitor. he talked to his surviving sister for the first time in 60 plus years last year, because my polish girlfriend and her sister took the time to track down his surviving polish family. another example of continental stability no doubt.

Yoyoma1910

11-19-2008, 07:04

this is very true, (i know two polish RAF pilots from WW2* and know of the contribution of many others), but it is completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

regardless of the fact the britain did, in concert with others, hold off and eventually defeat germany in 1945, what we are talking about is whether britain is indeed an island, and how that has effected the British mindset in such a way that we consider the EU via different criteria than 'many' continetal nations.

* he came from a part of poland that got annexed by russia into belo-russia (sp?), and after the end of the war he could not return to his homeland because he would have been shot as a traitor. he talked to his surviving sister for the first time in 60 plus years last year, because my polish girlfriend and her sister took the time to track down his surviving polish family. another example of continental stability no doubt.

That is the point, but you seem to be missing it.

No nation is truly an Island, and certainly not one as active in foreign politics as Britain. To claim that a nation were truly an island, in both mentality and policy, it would need to be exceptionally insular. Myanmar is far more so, but even they are forced to constantly deal with potential foreign influence.

Even many of your basic customs are derived from other cultures. Did tea originate upon your isle? What of porcelain? Heck, if you use a modern pencil you are influenced by the French Revolution.

And how many holes were sewn into your earlier argument?

Did not the "Glorious Revolution" include a Dutch invasion, and some battles?

British Colonies?
Indian vs. Pakistan
Palestine vs. Israel
Zimbabwe
Where is the great stability you claim you have left here?

What about the Suez Crisis?

Was not Britain involved in the Cold War? Then, Britain did suffer through the perils of communism, whether or not it was controlled by a communist faction.

And who did produce the despots? Was not Hitler's rise to power a reaction of the German people against the effects brought on by the policies of Britain and France after its defeat in WW1?

Are you saying the policies of Great Britain did not contribute to the start of WW1?

What about Ireland? Was not the whole island part of the UK not so long ago?

Is Britain an island?
Eh.

Papewaio

11-19-2008, 08:07

Britain geographically is an island.
Britain financially is a hub.
Britain linguistically is an import-exporter.
Britain culturally is by dint of its linguistic sponge like nature also an import-exporter.

Is Britain culturally more US related or EU related? Or is it like Hong Kong a gateway for the West to China? IMDHO Britain is a partner with the US as they have a lot of shared values, likewise Britain is a partner with the EU for similar reasons.

In the end of the day we are debating this around the world. So really what do borders count for?

=][=

Ausrailia may try to become part of Asia but it never will be seen as that by the other members of that region.
Economically it will trade with Asia but culturally it will never be Asian and when one is trying to carve a place in an pan Asian community that element of non aisianess will be an problem.

In effect the other asian countries will see oz as western they will feel ok trading with oz but not much more than that.

25% of Australians are born overseas. A lot of these are British and a lot are Mediterranean. Plenty of Europeans of all forms. We also have a large Indian, Asian, African and American (Brazilian seem to dominate). End of the day it is a multi-culture. Probably very much like Britain.

We do more then trade with asian countries...and they do more then trade with us. I would say we are a western country on the Pacific Rim. I think it is language not genetics that is our biggest trade and cultural barrier. Its pretty easy to go around Sydney and see plenty of couples who are definitely not ethnically related, to see that there isn't that big a barrier for the exchange of ideas at a national level if all the people are choosing partners based on common values and ideas yet coming up with a plethora of combinations.

JR-

11-19-2008, 09:58

That is the point, but you seem to be missing it.
No nation is truly an Island, and certainly not one as active in foreign politics as Britain. To claim that a nation were truly an island, in both mentality and policy, it would need to be exceptionally insular. Myanmar is far more so, but even they are forced to constantly deal with potential foreign influence.

Even many of your basic customs are derived from other cultures. Did tea originate upon your isle? What of porcelain? Heck, if you use a modern pencil you are influenced by the French Revolution.

And how many holes were sewn into your earlier argument?

Did not the "Glorious Revolution" include a Dutch invasion, and some battles?

British Colonies?
Indian vs. Pakistan
Palestine vs. Israel
Zimbabwe
Where is the great stability you claim you have left here?

What about the Suez Crisis?

Was not Britain involved in the Cold War? Then, Britain did suffer through the perils of communism, whether or not it was controlled by a communist faction.

And who did produce the despots? Was not Hitler's rise to power a reaction of the German people against the effects brought on by the policies of Britain and France after its defeat in WW1?

Are you saying the policies of Great Britain did not contribute to the start of WW1?

What about Ireland? Was not the whole island part of the UK not so long ago?

Is Britain an island?
Eh.

I have answered all this in my second post, something you have obviously failed to read.

This whole thread revolves directly around exactly how involved Britain should be within the EU, with Louis argueing that Britain is not an island metaphorically/militarily/culturally/economically etc.
I have responded in detail first by pointing out that i know very well exactly how european Britain is, and that i have never argued that Britain evolved in cultural isolation, i am not saying we are some splendid master culture that benefitted from nobody else in achieveing our excellence. This however is a total irrelevance.

To continue: europe is keen on the EU project for many reasons that are simply not relevant to Britain. Sure we'll be a good neighbour, and we'll trade with europe until they are blue in the face, but how does any of this mean that Britain will do even better within the EU rather than just being in the common market? It does not.

To give you the reasons i gave in the euro thread:

1. the EU was invented by france to ensure that germany never invaded again, germany was a bit embarrassed and so complied, their neighbours thought that was a jolly good idea too. not a problem Britain has.

2. socialism took a firmer grip on the continent than ever did here, and the consequence is a much greater enthusiasm for regulation in matters socio-economic. we freebooting Britons pillaging the high financial seas see this as a threat to our competitive advantage.

3. the continent as a result of the 100 years war, the franco-prussian war, the first world war as well as the second and many more, has suffered centuries of political instability repression and revolution. how many continental countries have not been facist, communist, revolutionary, and invaded in the last 350 years? the EU therefore represents stability to many nations, not a problem Britain has.

4. for an economic union to work, in the bad times as well as the good, there needs to be a large element of political union; who is the lender of last resort, why should germany bail out italy's fantastic attempt to make the euro worthless, etc. we don't necessarily want a political union, we have an exceptionally successful political model already, and no-one has demonstrated why an extra layer of EU federalism is an improvement.

5. we are rich in absolute and comparative terms, will joining the EU make us richer or poorer? certainly no-one has persuaded me that joining the EU will do anything but reduce britain's competitive advantage.

6. we have a history with, and a duty to, the commonwealth nations to assist them in their socio-economic development, and we like the freedom to recommend our political structures and structure economic packages to their benefit as we see fit. specifically, we dislike EU trade protectionism and the damage we feel it does to developing nations, especially given the skepticism with which we view aid programs. there is no question that greater involvement in the EU further reduces our options with the developing world generally, and the commonwealth in particular.

7. similar to #6, there further we integrate the less free our hand to act as we please, which is fine if we acted in concordance with the rest of the continent because we amplify our message, but bad if we have divergent views because our own will be watered down among 300 million continetal voices. if Britain decides it wants to join america in invading somewhere then i don't want to euro apparatchik telling us we can't because we signed up to a common foriegn policy!

i have yet to hear these many mysterious benefits i hear touted encouraging britain to join the euro, and i rather suspect that silence will persist.....................

There were no holes, where i was imprecise on dates i even emphasized the vagueness by bolding it, when i say; "1000 odd years" is any pedant really going to take me to task for it being 942 years ago, seriously?

Again, the Dutch, answered already. Did they invade the land (by which i mean more than sheerness fort), did they overthrow our Gov't and set up a new administrative control of the nation, did they ravage England up and down with warfare? No, they did not.

I made no claim that Britain was any great exporter of stability, I merely refuted Louis's claim that Britain has been a net recipient of stability from the continent by pointing out that if we are going to talk about importing and exporting stability then i thought the many european nations with a colonial past would bare examination.

Again, the Cold War, already answered. Did Britain suffer either communist or facist revolution by having her Gov't institutions overthrown by either ideology? No we did not, ergo we had a more stable social polity/or sufficient military advantage to prevent a successful invasion.

You can dance on the head of a pin all you like, at the end of the day it was not the British nation (people and leadership) that ravaged europe in the hundred years war (religious ideology), napoleonic war (empire ideology), WW1 (empire ideology), WW2 (political ideology), or the Cold War (also political ideology).

But you are still caught up with details that have little to do with the crux of the argument when picked over in isolation.
Do we want of the EU the sames things that many continental nations want out of the institution? No we do not.
Why do we not want the same things?
There are many reasons, see the quote above, but our island heritage is surely among them.

So i ask you, what of ireland? how is it at all relevant to the statement; Britain is not an island?

Must try harder.

CountArach

11-19-2008, 10:33

Ausrailia may try to become part of Asia but it never will be seen as that by the other members of that region.
Never is a long time - we have just come out of 12 years of a Government which made every effort to have us portrayed as the bad guy of the region. We have now elected a Government which is much more pro-Asia (The Prime Minister even speaks fluent Mandarin).

Economically it will trade with Asia but culturally it will never be Asian and when one is trying to carve a place in an pan Asian community that element of non aisianess will be an problem.
See Pape's post.

In effect the other asian countries will see oz as western they will feel ok trading with oz but not much more than that.
How can you be certain? We haven't tried anything else.

JR-

11-19-2008, 10:45

Ignoramus

11-19-2008, 12:38

JR-

11-19-2008, 13:08

Britain has so much to be proud of and yet she's chucking it away.

Britain is English, Scottish, Welsh, and British, and that's heads above being EUropean.

i have no problem with the fact we are european, so i edited your comment into a statement i can agree with.

Jolt

11-19-2008, 17:25

How many western European countries can claim to having changed from direct rule by a monarch to rule by a democratic parliament without blood being shed?

...The United Provinces? England had a Civil War concerning that.

As others have mentioned, it was Britain which led the fight against the slave trade, banning it before any of the other major powers. A rather courageous step and one to be proud of.

Britain has so much to be proud of and yet she's chucking it away.

Britain is English, Scottish, Welsh, and British, and that's heads above being European.

Portugal was the first major colonial empire that banned Slave Trade, thus before England.

I think Britain is European by the simple fact that it has always been inside the European Politics.
All it's wars were influenced by European Politics, and it's fate has always been closely tied with the whole of Europe.

Ronin

11-19-2008, 20:04

How many western European countries can claim to having changed from direct rule by a monarch to rule by a democratic parliament without blood being shed?

As others have mentioned, it was Britain which led the fight against the slave trade, banning it before any of the other major powers. A rather courageous step and one to be proud of.

Like it has already been stated Portugal banned the slave trade before England.

Also...Portugal went from a Fascist dictatorship government to a democracy through a bloodless revolution...not the same thing you were asking but close...

I must admit we killed our king :wiseguy:

also we where one of the first 3 countries in Europe to abolish the death penalty :deal2:.....ok..now I´m just bragging :portugal: :saint:

JR-

11-19-2008, 23:01

Ronin

11-19-2008, 23:11

I live here and I say that for me it is a very good thing indeed.

people that live elsewhere can do as they please...it´s not my concern.....they are wrong of course..:2thumbsup: but it´s not my concern.

Louis VI the Fat

11-20-2008, 00:21

My principle point is that Britian is indeed different in part due to our geographyThis, as it happens, is my principal point as well. However, to put it bluntly, the whole of British national identity is based on two erroneous beliefs:

1 - Britain is 'different'. That's why: Europe = the Continent + the UK.
2 - This difference is based on Britain's different geography, being an island.

Both are false. Here goes:

1 - The one thing that sets Britain apart from the rest of Europe is Britain's extreme and singularly stubborn nationalism.

All national identities in Europe are based on the formula: 'Europe is divided in two. Us and everybody else.' This IS Europe. Fifty, or maybe five hundred, very different cultures whose one thing in common is that none have much in common with the others. Britain is exactly the same as all the others in this regard. The Scandinavians, the Italians, the Greeks, the Iberians, the Poles, the Russians - all of their national identities share Britain's formula. The Italians speak of a Europe divided in two, Cisalpina and Transalpina, Europe below and beyond the Alps. The Basques think that they are the single odd one out, based on their language and isolated position: Europe = Basque + the others. Etcetera.

Paradoxically, being unique is not unique. Instead, uniqueness is the very norm in Europe.

The three aspects in which Britain does differ from other European (or US) regions in this regard are that in Britain this is taken completely seriously, it goes virtually unoppossed in public debate, and it is often mindlessly repeated even in academic circles.

2 - Because Britain is geographically an island, located where it is, Britain is the last country that can make a serious claim to the formula 'Europe = us + the others'.

2.1 The island of Great Britian is not at all a unique European geographical feature.

Italy is seperated form 'the continent' by an impregnable mountain range. Trade and travel must go over sea. For all intent and purposes, Italy is an island.
Iberia is seperated form 'the continent' by an impregnable mountain range. Trade and travel must go over sea. For all intent and purposes, Iberia is an island
Scandinavia is impossible to reach overland. Trade and travel must go over sea. For all intent and purposes, Sweden and Norway are islands.
The Mediterranean is full of islands. All consider themselves quite different from ‘the continent’.
In the North, Sjaelland (Denmark), Iceland, the Faroer, Ireland are islands as well.
Greece, with all it's peninsula's and islands is sea based. Pretty much a collection of islands and virtual islands.

The point? Half of Europe is an island. Better: Europe IS this peculiar collection of peninsulas, peninsulas of peninsulas, and islands. There is nothing whatsoever special about Britains geographical circumstance. It is, on the contrary, the norm for most of Europe. Again, all these countries think they are the odd one out, that they are the ones who are different from 'the mainland'. But nowhere is this idea taken to such extremities as in Britain.

2.2 Historically, water is not a barrier, but a highway.
Isolated and different are places without access to water, not the other way round. For some inexplicable reason, even serious British historians overlook this mechanism. A mechanism that has been common knownledge since antiquity.
Not until the middle of the 19th century, and for most purposes, until the middle of the 20th century, did this mechanism change. Only trains and cars have made meaningful overland trade and travel possible. Before this very recent development, being an island meant one was anything but insular. As witnessed by Britain's history, which has always been in perfect synchronisation with its neighbours overseas.

2.3 Following on the part above: because of it’s convenient location in the heart of Europe and the easy and uninterrupted flow of communication of persons, goods and ideas to and fro Britain, England and the south of Scotland belong to Europe's core*. Therefore, Britain is part of the definition of Europe, and can logically hence make no claim to being different from Europe. What is part of a definition, can not claim to be outside of it.
*See, for example, Immanuel Wallerstein and Fernand Braudel.

It is because of these three aspects that Great Britain is not an island. Island, in the definition of insular and seprated from a main body. Save for the narrowest geographical sense of the word, Great Britain is not an island.

Louis VI the Fat

11-20-2008, 00:23

Like it has already been stated Portugal banned the slave trade before England.

Also...Portugal went from a Fascist dictatorship government to a democracy through a bloodless revolution...not the same thing you were asking but close...

I must admit we killed our king :wiseguy:

also we where one of the first 3 countries in Europe to abolish the death penalty :deal2:.....ok..now I´m just bragging :portugal: :saint:This is exactly the point.

Portugal is a singular country and a has followed a unique historical path. This is owing to Portugal being geographically seperate from the continent.

Peripheral and sharing a land border with only one other country, Portugal naturally looked to the sea. Portugal has build itself a trading empire in America, Africa, India and a single city in China. Portuguese history is that of seafaring, of a unique political history. It is only half European, and half looking overseas. Because of this unique historical path owing to its unique location, Portugal is very different from mainland Europe.

Sounds familiar?

JR-

11-20-2008, 00:41

This, as it happens, is my principal point as well. However, to put it bluntly, the whole of British national identity is based on two erroneous beliefs:

1 - Britain is 'different'. That's why: Europe = the Continent + the UK.
2 - This difference is based on Britain's different geography, being an island.

Both are false. Here goes:

1 - The one thing that sets Britain apart from the rest of Europe is Britain's extreme and singularly stubborn nationalism.

All national identities in Europe are based on the formula: 'Europe is divided in two. Us and everybody else.' This IS Europe. Fifty, or maybe five hundred, very different cultures whose one thing in common is that none have much in common with the others. Britain is exactly the same as all the others in this regard. The Scandinavians, the Italians, the Greeks, the Iberians, the Poles, the Russians - all of their national identities share Britain's formula. The Italians speak of a Europe divided in two, Cisalpina and Transalpina, Europe below and beyond the Alps. The Basques think that they are the single odd one out, based on their language and isolated position: Europe = Basque + the others. Etcetera.

Paradoxically, being unique is not unique. Instead, uniqueness is the very norm in Europe.

The three aspects in which Britain does differ from other European (or US) regions in this regard are that in Britain this is taken completely seriously, it goes virtually unoppossed in public debate, and it is often mindlessly repeated even in academic circles.

2 - Because Britain is geographically an island, located where it is, Britain is the last country that can make a serious claim to the formula 'Europe = us + the others'.

2.1 The island of Great Britian is not at all a unique European geographical feature.

Italy is seperated form 'the continent' by an impregnable mountain range. Trade and travel must go over sea. For all intent and purposes, Italy is an island.
Iberia is seperated form 'the continent' by an impregnable mountain range. Trade and travel must go over sea. For all intent and purposes, Iberia is an island
Scandinavia is impossible to reach overland. Trade and travel must go over sea. For all intent and purposes, Sweden and Norway are islands.
The Mediterranean is full of islands. All consider themselves quite different from ‘the continent’.
In the North, Sjaelland (Denmark), Iceland, the Faroer, Ireland are islands as well.
Greece, with all it's peninsula's and islands is sea based. Pretty much a collection of islands and virtual islands.

The point? Half of Europe is an island. Better: Europe IS this peculiar collection of peninsulas, peninsulas of peninsulas, and islands. There is nothing whatsoever special about Britains geographical circumstance. It is, on the contrary, the norm for most of Europe. Again, all these countries think they are the odd one out, that they are the ones who are different from 'the mainland'. But nowhere is this idea taken to such extremities as in Britain.

2.2 Historically, water is not a barrier, but a highway.
Isolated and different are places without access to water, not the other way round. For some inexplicable reason, even serious British historians overlook this mechanism. A mechanism that has been common knownledge since antiquity.
Not until the middle of the 19th century, and for most purposes, until the middle of the 20th century, did this mechanism change. Only trains and cars have made meaningful overland trade and travel possible. Before this very recent development, being an island meant one was anything but insular. As witnessed by Britain's history, which has always been in perfect synchronisation with its neighbours overseas.

2.3 Following on the part above: because of it’s convenient location in the heart of Europe and the easy and uninterrupted flow of communication of persons, goods and ideas to and fro Britain, England and the south of Scotland belong to Europe's core*. Therefore, Britain is part of the definition of Europe, and can logically hence make no claim to being different from Europe. What is part of a definition, can not claim to be outside of it.
*See, for example, Immanuel Wallerstein and Fernand Braudel.

It is because of these three aspects that Great Britain is not an island. Island, in the definition of insular and seprated from a main body. Save for the narrowest geographical sense of the word, Great Britain is not an island.
wah wah wah.

the two things you keep on repeating:
1. the conflation of europe and the EU.
i have never denied the former, but the latter is nothing but a construct to bridge the differences between some of those european nations.
2. that Britain alone is contrary, yes perhaps we are, why are you unwilling to leave us alone in our contrariness?
i have given you lots of reasons as to why britain remains un-enamoured of the EU project, and yet you persist in characterising it as some psychological deficiency. maybe you should just accept that we are in fact a little different and that difference is primarily expressed by a refusual to conflate europe with the EU.

europe is not the EU.
recognising one does not mean legitimising the other.
Britain does not need the EU the way some continental nations need the EU, have you noticed that we don't care very much about it, or is that just another example of the British pathology?

Louis VI the Fat

11-20-2008, 00:54

Strike For The South

11-20-2008, 01:05

Francophilia runs rampant in this thread. :laugh4:

Incongruous

11-20-2008, 01:48

I am not talking about the EU. If there was not an EU at all, I would have made the exact same post above.

I think that a British national identity based on the idea 'singular and unique, owing to being an island' dates from the nineteenth century. Well before any EU.
Splendid Isolation is a political, strategical impulse that lives on in another guise. In the national conciousness as a part of national identity, and simoultanously as an explanation for this identity.

As for the EU, the UK is of course completely free to make up its own mind about whether it either should be in the EU or whether it shouldn't remain apart from the EU. ~;)

So what is the point of this thread?
Comes across as smug sniping behind a Parisian curtain.

Britain is different to Europe the same way Russia is, France however has always very much been the center of Europe, with the occasional stand up of Spain and Germany. Perhaps your own society's centrality has lead to your own misunderstanding of our situation?

You see, you can cry and cry about how unfair it is that we see ourselves as apart in some way and measure form EUrope, and claim in your loudest voice that the longstanding fact of the isle of Great Britain is a fallacy, but it will not change a thing.

If you know this (which I expect you do), then this thread was started with a malicious intent, nothing more, and I would be willing to start up another in response, would you care to dance?

Banquo's Ghost

11-20-2008, 08:48

Louis, I pay tribute to some of the finest posts you have made. Fascinating thesis, eloquently argued. :bow:

It is also interesting to note the degree of hostility the idea has provoked. Roll on the Six Nations when we islanders can play rugger without interference from those beastly foreigners.

JR-

11-20-2008, 09:27

I am not talking about the EU. If there was not an EU at all, I would have made the exact same post above.

I think that a British national identity based on the idea 'singular and unique, owing to being an island' dates from the nineteenth century. Well before any EU.
Splendid Isolation is a political, strategical impulse that lives on in another guise. In the national conciousness as a part of national identity, and simoultanously as an explanation for this identity.

As for the EU, the UK is of course completely free to make up its own mind about whether it either should be in the EU or whether it shouldn't remain apart from the EU. ~;)

as Bopa said; "then what is the point of this thread?"

it sprang directly from the - is it time for Britain to enter the euro thread, where i spent a great deal of time pointing out that economic union must lead to greater political union, and given that we didn't want or need political union and there was no economic net benefit to economic union, then in fact Britain was better off outside of both.

so what you say you are argueing is:
a) that we are in fact europeans - guess what, nobody has disagreed and certainly not me.
b) our past strategic policy has left the British mindset insular - perhaps so but i would say that it leaves us well conditioned to cope with the realities of Britain's strategic position today.

but we didn't really have an argument about european'ness did we, you were trying to build a construct to justify your view that Britain is perverse in not loving the EU project, aren't you?

Brenus

11-20-2008, 16:03

“How many western European countries can claim to having changed from direct rule by a monarch to rule by a democratic parliament without blood being shed?” So John Lack Land did sign the Magna Charta because he was a good chap and Cromwell wasn’t so evil at last…

“As others have mentioned, it was Britain which led the fight against the slave trade, banning it before any of the other major powers. A rather courageous step and one to be proud of.” After the 1st French Revolution abolished it (reinstalled by Napoleon of course) and Portugal as well apparently… Ah, History and dates…:beam:

“that's heads above” was probably what Louis XVI was thinking the 13th of July 1789.:laugh4:

England is not an Island by geography. England is probably the Monarchy which had so many none English kings.
The channel wasn’t real a fence stopping incursion and invasions if I follow what they say in History Channel. One of the most famous King of England own his throne to French mercenaries landed by a French fleet.
It wasn’t foreign armies landing in England, but English Armies landing on the Continent, protected from defeat by a narrow piece of sea…
However, all “European” influences crossed easily the Channel, from Victor Hugo to Marx.

But England is an Island in the mind of the British. Whatever it cost: the Pound which cut UK from main market, the fact that 80% of the trade is within Europe.
Reality is English buying properties in France, Spain and Croatia thanks to EU is not enough to convince the English EU is good for them. England being out of EU perhaps it would be possible to ban their very dangerous cars with the driving wheel at the wrong place to roam EU roads…

For what I remember EU didn’t asked UK to join. De Gaulle was against UK to join EU. It wasn’t IMPOSED on the UK.

It is fun to hear on a English Radio Station sentences like “to morrow I’ll go to Europe”. It is what some think.

JR-

11-20-2008, 17:01

But England is an Island in the mind of the British. Whatever it cost: the Pound which cut UK from main market, the fact that 80% of the trade is within Europe.

screwed up
about 40/60 in goods.

Yoyoma1910

11-20-2008, 17:23

truly? that's not what i'm seeing:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/Mm24Sep08.pdf

Page 4 total trade in 2007 = 368,337 Export and 415,817 Import (Bop £millions)
Page 6 total trade with EU in 2007 = 127,678 Export and 169,142 Import (Bop £millions)

Looks like closer to 1/3 of the value of all trade is done with the EU..............

You need to be comparing page 6 to page 7 to get an accurate comparison. Not 4 and 6.

Otherwise you're comparing apple and oranges, to just apples.

JR-

11-20-2008, 17:32

[edit]
trust ONS to give global figures for goods & services but only goods figures broken down between EU and non-EU.

Yoyoma1910

11-20-2008, 17:37

Because page 4 includes both goods and services, whereas page 6 is simple goods. It doesn't include services. Page 7, is "Value of Trade in Goods with Non-Eu Countries."

It's called loading the deck. It's not an accurate assessment of ratios.

Louis VI the Fat

11-20-2008, 17:49

Yoyoma1910

11-20-2008, 17:54

Section F gives a 'Geographical analysis. Page 47:

EU total for 2007:
127,678 Export and 169,142 Import
Non-EU total for 2007:
93,025 Export and 140,813 Import.

Some 60% of UK's trade is with the EU. :sweatdrop:

Yes, I saw that.

Europe is a big house with many rooms. And a common thread runs through those rooms, tying the whole thing together.

Anyway, while one may feel whatever about their identity, one can never really escape ones family.

JR-

11-20-2008, 18:28

These were the statistics I couldn't find earlier. Section F gives a 'Geographical analysis. Page 47:

Trade in Goods with EU total for 2007:
127,678 Export and 169,142 Import
Trade in Goods with Non-EU total for 2007:
93,025 Export and 140,813 Import.

Some 60% of UK's trade in goods is with the EU. :sweatdrop:
yup, what i was after was total figures for goods and services, given that services make up a large proportion of UK trade, i didn't quite manage that obviously. :)

Louis VI the Fat

11-20-2008, 18:40

yup, what i was after was total figures for goods and services, given that services make up a large proportion of UK trade, i didn't quite manage that obviously. :)I did not manage to find those numbers either. :shrug:

I couldn't even find these numbers, and am happy you did. Your Google-fu beat mine. :shame:

I am looking forward to the numbers for services with confidence, though.

Maybe the UK government realised that they were made up for a large part by Britain's finance and banking sector, and quickly erased all trace of them from the books. ~;)

JR-

11-20-2008, 18:50

:inquisitive: what are you confident they will confirm for you, in relation to this discussion?

i only brought them to correct Brenus on what i new to be an inaccurate figure of 80%.

Brenus

11-20-2008, 21:24

I didn't think they were accurate.
Does it include all the trips to Calais? Specially for X-mass
:laugh4:

JR-

11-20-2008, 22:17

probably not. :clown:

JR-

11-25-2008, 09:32

a great example of that 'difference':
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/3513511/France-demands-7bn-farm-subsidies-before-talks-begin.html

we want free trade, they want trade protection from subsidies.

HoreTore

11-25-2008, 10:10

2 - I am quite convinced a majority of British foreign trade is with the EU. Strangely, I can't find a link.

The CIA has you covered, Louis! And since this isn't about any WMD's, I think we can trust them....

Export partners:
US 14.2%, Germany 11.1%, France 8.1%, Ireland 8%, Netherlands 6.8%, Belgium 5.3%, Spain 4.5%, Italy 4.1% (2007)

Import Partners:
Germany 14.2%, US 8.7%, China 7.3%, Netherlands 7.3%, France 6.9%, Belgium 4.7%, Norway 4.7%, Italy 4.2% (2007)

The economy of Britain is, indeed, on the continent. The only thing stopping that would be the coming Indian/Chinese powerhouse, and by then we'll all be in that situation. Together.

And we all know that the real reason Britain resists the euro is because of the national-romantic dream of the Pound and it's former glory. Brits do love to dream of the past, with their great empire, economy, army... They'll probably wake up eventually though. If not, their 3 remaining ships(boats) won't even be able to fend of the Norwegian navy :clown:

That's a good scenario, actually. But I doubt we'll pillage and rape this time... Judging by the standards of british women nowadays, I'd say we should stick with the pillaging.

Jolt

11-25-2008, 13:00

Judging by the standards of british women nowadays, I'd say we should stick with the pillaging.

:laugh4:

JR-

11-25-2008, 13:51

And we all know that the real reason Britain resists the euro is because of the national-romantic dream of the Pound and it's former glory. Brits do love to dream of the past, with their great empire, economy, army... They'll probably wake up eventually though. If not, their 3 remaining ships(boats) won't even be able to fend of the Norwegian navy :clown:

That's a good scenario, actually. But I doubt we'll pillage and rape this time... Judging by the standards of british women nowadays, I'd say we should stick with the pillaging.
I won't argue about British women, there is a reason why i have a girlfriend from the continent, but jokes aside you are yet another person that has failed to provide any reason to explain WHY britain would be better off using the euro than sterling...............

And given that this thread is actually about the politics of Britains 'perverse' desire to remain apart from our EUro-integrationist cousins across the water............. you could probably do with weaving that into your argument, otherwise your comment is better left in the; Is it time for Britain to join the Euro thread.

Sarmatian

11-25-2008, 20:40

I won't argue about British women, there is a reason why i have a girlfriend from the continent, but jokes aside you are yet another person that has failed to provide any reason to explain WHY britain would be better off using the euro than sterling...............

Check the exchange rate when euro was first introduced and check it now. Since most of the British trading is with the countries on the continent, I'd think that's reason enough.

Just a few days ago I've read that Fabio Capello lost 1.2 million euros because of that...

Seamus Fermanagh

11-25-2008, 21:23

Export partners:
US 14.2%, Germany 11.1%, France 8.1%, Ireland 8%, Netherlands 6.8%, Belgium 5.3%, Spain 4.5%, Italy 4.1% (2007)

Import Partners:
Germany 14.2%, US 8.7%, China 7.3%, Netherlands 7.3%, France 6.9%, Belgium 4.7%, Norway 4.7%, Italy 4.2% (2007)

Is there ANYBODY with whom we yanks do NOT have a trade defecit? :rolleyes3:

Sarmatian

11-25-2008, 21:26

Is there ANYBODY with whom we yanks do NOT have a trade defecit? :rolleyes3:

I'm pretty sure you don't have one with Serbia. Your surplus might go up to three or four thousand dollars :laugh4:

Brenus

11-25-2008, 22:33

“provide any reason to explain WHY britain would be better off using the euro”
1- To end the English banks robbery of Exchange rate, to be able to use the same money in Ireland, Germany, France
2 - to be able to compare de visu our salaries and charges with the rest of them.
3 - Spend your hard earned money without having to calculate how much it is in Pounds…
4 - Not having foreign useless coins in a jar on the top of the fridge waiting for the next time you will need them…
The last one is the most convincing....

JR-

11-25-2008, 23:26

JR-

11-25-2008, 23:27

Check the exchange rate when euro was first introduced and check it now. Since most of the British trading is with the countries on the continent, I'd think that's reason enough.

our exporters will benefit, our financial sector will suffer, but on balance...............

Incongruous

11-26-2008, 01:38

I think the animosity toward the UK as indicated by the French government's policy on farm subsidies is yet another reason why the UK will continue to view EUrope with dislike.

That and Brussels absurd policy on Turkey...

Sarmatian

11-26-2008, 01:57

our exporters will benefit, our financial sector will suffer, but on balance...............

Exporting benefit of inflation is overrated. Sure it's there, but quite limited, it's beneficial between let's say 1-3%, depending on the circumstances. Over that cons far outweigh the pros. But let's say it's beneficial, doesn't matter how high. It will make British goods cheaper on the continent, thus stimulation British exports but at the same time it will make continental goods more expensive in Britain, and you're importing more from Germany then you're exporting to Germany, same with France, Netherlands, Belgium etc...

I think in the long run it would be beneficial for UK to switch to euro. It's not like British economy is going to collapse if it doesn't but holding on to something because of conservatism or national pride when other option offer practical benefits isn't the best way to go.

Incongruous

11-26-2008, 07:19

Practicality, what a wonderful word, hardly one EUrope can be maiking however:dizzy2:

Brenus

11-26-2008, 08:48

“all valid reasons for a non-Brit to want us in the euro”. So, only non-Brits working in UK go in holidays in Spain, programme their Stag Night in Amsterdam, have relatives in Ireland and buy properties in France, Spain and even Croatia. I did notice a lot of English in Calais, mind you. Ok, they could have been Irish or Welsh….:beam:

JR-

11-26-2008, 10:34

Exporting benefit of inflation is overrated. Sure it's there, but quite limited, it's beneficial between let's say 1-3%, depending on the circumstances. Over that cons far outweigh the pros. But let's say it's beneficial, doesn't matter how high. It will make British goods cheaper on the continent, thus stimulation British exports but at the same time it will make continental goods more expensive in Britain, and you're importing more from Germany then you're exporting to Germany, same with France, Netherlands, Belgium etc...

I think in the long run it would be beneficial for UK to switch to euro. It's not like British economy is going to collapse if it doesn't but holding on to something because of conservatism or national pride when other option offer practical benefits isn't the best way to go.
against the damage euro harmonisation will cause to the competitive advantage of our financial sector?

the financial sector in the city of london brings in to the exchequer nearly one third of corporation tax tax from the whole of the UK.

you can just see how happy frankfurt and paris would be to see london adopt the same financial regulations as the rest of the continent.

JR-

11-26-2008, 10:35

JR-

12-12-2008, 17:33

I did not manage to find those numbers either. :shrug:

I couldn't even find these numbers, and am happy you did. Your Google-fu beat mine. :shame:

I am looking forward to the numbers for services with confidence, though.

Maybe the UK government realised that they were made up for a large part by Britain's finance and banking sector, and quickly erased all trace of them from the books. ~;)

I think i have an answer at last, courtesy of the Office of National Statistics, and it is one-half rather than four-fifths:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2081894&postcount=72

The EU represents 52.42% of the total value of trade conducted by Britain. :)

I wonder how that compares with EU nations as a percentage value of total trade within and without the EU?

Louis VI the Fat

12-13-2008, 18:48

Louis VI the Fat

12-13-2008, 18:56

I'll present you with a new argument as well: US and other foreing investments in Britain (http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Europe/United-Kingdom-INTERNATIONAL-TRADE.html). US companies prefer the British Isles for their European investments. (Actually, they simply prefer the UK. With Ireland subsidising market share by grossly undercutting British and European corporate tax rates, courtesy of and funded by the EU)
The UK attracts more US investment than the next four countries combined - France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.

This system relies on an internal market. Without it, the US companies would have to divide their UK investments over all their different European markets. There would be no point in centrally conducting all European business from the UK if there was no unhampered flow of goods and capital in a common market. These unhampered flows rely on legal harmonisation, and would be greatly served further by a common currency.

The United Kingdom's economy is dependent on foreign trade. The government supports free and unrestricted trade and has championed international trade organizations such as the World Trade Organization and the EU. Because of its dependency on trade, the British have few restrictions on foreign trade and investment. Of the kingdom's 500 largest corporations, 60 are American. The United Kingdom's main trade partner is the EU. Some 58 percent of the kingdom's exports go to EU nations. Its main EU partners are Germany, which accounts for 12 percent of exports; France, with 12 percent; and the Netherlands with 8 percent. The United Kingdom's largest single market is the United States, which accounts for 13 percent of its exports. The United States also provides 14 percent of the kingdom's imports. As a combined group, the EU provides 53 percent of British imports. Germany provides 13 percent, France 9 percent, the Netherlands 7 percent, and Italy 5 percent. The United Kingdom has trade treaties with 90 different nations.

The strength of the British pound and the state of the economy has made the United Kingdom an attractive investment area for foreign investors. The kingdom is the world's second-largest destination for investment. About 30 percent of all foreign investment going into the EU is directed at the United Kingdom. The British also invest heavily in other nations. In 1998, the United Kingdom had US$120 billion invested abroad. The United States is the largest single investor in the United Kingdom and accounts for 44 percent of all foreign investment in the United Kingdom. In 1997, U.S. investment in the United Kingdom amounted to US$138.8 billion. The total U.S. investment in the United Kingdom is more than the total American investment in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands combined. In overall terms, foreign investment accounted for 5 percent of GDP.

For several decades, the United Kingdom has had a trade deficit, as it has imported more goods and services than it has exported. In 1998, the trade deficit amounted to US$35 billion or 1.5 percent of GDP. However, because of the attractiveness of the kingdom to foreign investors, new investment capital continues to allow the British to fund this deficit because the new investment monies exceed the money the kingdom loses through its trade deficit.

Foreign companies provide 40 percent of British exports and they have a significant presence in the manufacturing sector.

It is a brilliant position for the UK and Ireland to be in. The two behemoths of the world economy, the US and the EU, conduct their business through the British Isles. Because both flows of goods and investments meet in Britain, services are located in London as well. And because the services infrastructure for global trade in London is virtually unmatched because of it, the Asians and Middle Easterners find their way to London too. This is how Britain makes its money, how the UK utilises its cultural and economic global position to its great advantage.

This is why there is so little desire amongst British political and financial elites to leave this system. They see no reason for the UK to voluntarily give up this gift from God, this central position in world trade, simply for tabloid outrage over mythical banana shape regulation, or for blathering buffoons who insist that it is 1933 and the EU nazi-Germany reincarnated.

London is to the Atlantic what Hong Kong is to Asia. Even the Chinese commie autocrats were not stupid enough to slaughter this goose with the golden eggs. After regaining sovereignity over Hong Kong, they took painstaking care not to interfere with its workings and position. Very unlike the UK, where the ill-adviced anti-EU sentiment forever demands Westminster pulls out from underneath Britain the very foundation on which the UK economy is build.

When the Empire was gone, Britain was bankrupt. It had lost its function as global centre. A poor, obsolete country, that is what Britain was before it joined. It is the EU that has given Britain a new chance at the position of pivot in global trade. De Gaulle understood this when he wanted the Britain to stay out - why give the British another shot? And, why bring in this Trojan Horse of Anglosaxon ultra-capitalism?

One of the great ironies of the EU is that precisely its engine, France-Germany, has the least to gain from it economically. France is in it for maintaining its position as great power, or, more positively, to fulfill its vocation of spreading democracy across the continent (or shaping Europe in her own image, for you cynics). Germany is in it for its history, to find its place within Europe at last. The UK is in it for the money. Conflicting interests - as it should be, because the interaction between conflict and competition on the one hand, and cooperation and exchange of ideas on the other, is what historically has been the strenght of Europe.

But, just why the popular image of the EU within the UK should be that the EU is but an elaborate scheme to release Britain of its wealth is beyond me. To use Napoleon's characterisation: a nation of shopkeepers, that's what it is. Can't see beyond the pennies in front of them.
A measly few hundred million pounds to pay for EU services, to maintain stability and democracy, and to development the market by stimulating periphral regions. That's all the EU costs Britain. In exchange, it finds itself at a phenomenally great position to amass fabulous wealth.

JR-

12-14-2008, 15:00

Thanks for those numbers, Furunculu, here and in the Euro thread.

And I've got some good news for you! I browsed that UK statistics site. It appears that the percentage of UK trade with the EU is shrinking. :whip:
Can't refind that page for a link. The numbers are, on top of my head, if 2003 is 100, than 2008 trade with the EU is 110, and with non-EU is 130.

I assume this is a Europe-wide phenomenon, based on the increasing economic presence of the large emerging markets.

my pleasure, and many thanks for your info, more info is always good.

though i should point out, that i am not necessarily pleased that trade with any party should decline, what pleases me is that we trade with everyone possible to the maximum possible extent. but i believe you are right that it does reflect the importance of the emerging markets especially given our service export bias.

Louis VI the Fat

12-14-2008, 16:00

p.s. my name is Furunculus, but i was forced to create a new account with a "5" at the end because i lost the password That's so odd! I had the exact same problem! I had to put a 'V' after my name is well, the fifth letter of the alphabet, which is of course 'e'. My name should not read 'Louis the Sixth' but 'Louise the First'. People keep getting it wrong, seemingly unaware that I am a girl. :wall:

JR-

12-14-2008, 17:30

1. With Ireland subsidising market share by grossly undercutting British and European corporate tax rates, courtesy of and funded by the EU)

2. This system relies on an internal market. Without it, the US companies would have to divide their UK investments over all their different European markets. There would be no point in centrally conducting all European business from the UK if there was no unhampered flow of goods and capital in a common market. These unhampered flows rely on legal harmonisation, and would be greatly served further by a common currency.

3. This is why there is so little desire amongst British political and financial elites to leave this system. They see no reason for the UK to voluntarily give up this gift from God, this central position in world trade, simply for tabloid outrage over mythical banana shape regulation, or for blathering buffoons who insist that it is 1933 and the EU nazi-Germany reincarnated.

4. London is to the Atlantic what Hong Kong is to Asia. Even the Chinese commie autocrats were not stupid enough to slaughter this goose with the golden eggs. After regaining sovereignity over Hong Kong, they took painstaking care not to interfere with its workings and position. Very unlike the UK, where the ill-adviced anti-EU sentiment forever demands Westminster pulls out from underneath Britain the very foundation on which the UK economy is build.

5. When the Empire was gone, Britain was bankrupt. It had lost its function as global centre. A poor, obsolete country, that is what Britain was before it joined. It is the EU that has given Britain a new chance at the position of pivot in global trade. De Gaulle understood this when he wanted the Britain to stay out - why give the British another shot? And, why bring in this Trojan Horse of Anglosaxon ultra-capitalism?

6. One of the great ironies of the EU is that precisely its engine, France-Germany, has the least to gain from it economically. France is in it for maintaining its position as great power, or, more positively, to fulfill its vocation of spreading democracy across the continent (or shaping Europe in her own image, for you cynics). Germany is in it for its history, to find its place within Europe at last. The UK is in it for the money. Conflicting interests - as it should be, because the interaction between conflict and competition on the one hand, and cooperation and exchange of ideas on the other, is what historically has been the strength of Europe.

7. But, just why the popular image of the EU within the UK should be that the EU is but an elaborate scheme to release Britain of its wealth is beyond me. To use Napoleon's characterisation: a nation of shopkeepers, that's what it is. Can't see beyond the pennies in front of them.
A measly few hundred million pounds to pay for EU services, to maintain stability and democracy, and to development the market by stimulating periphral regions. That's all the EU costs Britain. In exchange, it finds itself at a phenomenally great position to amass fabulous wealth.

1. Ireland has boosted its economic growth by creating and presiding over a low taxation economy, that is their a choice and a sensible one at that, and it is certainly not funded by EU grants.

2. Yes Britian certainly benefits from sitting between europe and america, and as long as we are within the common market that will remain so. That does not mean we have to become part of a federal europe or adopt the euro.

3. You make it sound as is I and the rest of the EUroskeptic crowd want Britain to totally withdraw from europe which is not the case, give me the common market and that will suffice.

4. Why will 'ill advised' anti-EU sentiment destroy the British economy? That would only happen if the EU kicked us out of the common market if we elected to remove ourselves from the EU. If that were to happen then i would still rather be out, because the EU would be exactly the Nazi-Germany reincarnated that you refute (as do I).

5. No, absolutely wrong, Britain was bankrupt because we had mortaged the entire empire to fight two world wars at a time when the empire was no longer a profit making venture. The EU did not give us our wealth back, what a ridiculous statement, it engaged in a free trade union and we traded. Free trade is not some benevolent gift, it is the natural state of affairs.

6. The EU was invented by france to ensure that germany never invaded again, germany being a little embarrassed by recent history complied, and their poor trampled neighbours thinking that this was a jolly good idea were happy to join the party too. Not a problem Britain has, so yes we are in it for the money, and if our continental trading partners decide not to slaughter each other every half century thereby destroying the markets that help make Britain rich then all the better.

7. We do not object to the EU because we believe 'you' are trying to beggar us, we simply want no part of ever deeper union which is a desired goal and a necessary outcome of monetary union, especially when the harmonisation does little more than erode our competitive advantage in areas important to our economy. Again i will state, this has nothing to do with our desire to remain in the common market.

JR-

12-14-2008, 17:36

I should point out that the principle basis of my attitude to the EU revolves around two points:
1. I want nothing of ever deeper union, something which is both a stated goal and also a necessary outcome of a single currency.
2. If we do reject the encroaching political union then the europe WILL offer us efta/eea status.

So, although i think the plan for a more federated europe is daft and that the EU would be better off wide and shallow than narrow and deep, if that's what you guys want then go for it, just don't expect the UK to be there to give 'stature' to the perception of EUropean economic, military, and political might.

Brenus

12-15-2008, 00:06

“The EU was invented by france to ensure that germany never invaded again, germany being a little embarrassed by recent history complied,”
EU WAS NOT INVENTED by France.
The Iron and Coal Agreement was a political gesture and a good one. France and Germany decided that enough was enough and it won’t be necessary to slaughter their youth once again in case of dispute.
Again, the UK wasn’t forced at knife point to join.
The fall of the Pound today should be a good reason to reinforce the link but the English won’t accept it.
They loose money: it could be a good moment to export to EU but what? There are no more industries in England. The last car factory closed 2 years ago, with 2,000,000 Pounds for the manager and no pension funds for the workers.
If you find something "Made in England", sent it to a museum…

It is the big DENIAL. UK is independent, we have the Pound. The problem is when the Pound is going down, we are the only one to suffer, when the Euro does, well, what does it change for France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Holland and all the others: Nothing. They experiment the same evolution. It doesn’t affect exportation and importation, wages or prices within this community.
A Frenchman retired in Spain. Not a problem. An Englishman retired in Spain: He can’t pay the rent any more…
UK Companies paying their employees in EU/Euro zone will see the price. But the English will keep the Pound. The Pound protects the island against the snaky French and the German. Rules Britannia, rules the waves… “Flutuact nec mergitur” well, for how long?
The opportunity to join the Euro is lost, thanks to people like the one you read. They will never accept to be wrong. They will never accept to have been manipulated by newspapers owned by foreigners; they will never accept they were just gullible.

“our continental trading partners decide not to slaughter each other every half century”
I am sure you did notice some monuments with some names on it in England. The English was part of the slaughter…:beam:

“and it is certainly not funded by EU grants”: You are having a laugh…

Husar

12-15-2008, 05:01

That's so odd! I had the exact same problem! I had to put a 'V' after my name is well, the fifth letter of the alphabet, which is of course 'e'. My name should not read 'Louis the Sixth' but 'Louise the First'. People keep getting it wrong, seemingly unaware that I am a girl. :wall:

Hmm, a girl with a Wunder Boner. :inquisitive:

JR-

12-15-2008, 09:54

1. “The EU was invented by france to ensure that germany never invaded again, germany being a little embarrassed by recent history complied,”
EU WAS NOT INVENTED by France.
The Iron and Coal Agreement was a political gesture and a good one. France and Germany decided that enough was enough and it won’t be necessary to slaughter their youth once again in case of dispute.

2. The fall of the Pound today should be a good reason to reinforce the link but the English won’t accept it.
They loose money: it could be a good moment to export to EU but what? There are no more industries in England. The last car factory closed 2 years ago, with 2,000,000 Pounds for the manager and no pension funds for the workers.
If you find something "Made in England", sent it to a museum…

3. It is the big DENIAL. UK is independent, we have the Pound. The problem is when the Pound is going down, we are the only one to suffer, when the Euro does, well, what does it change for France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Holland and all the others: Nothing. They experiment the same evolution. It doesn’t affect exportation and importation, wages or prices within this community.
A Frenchman retired in Spain. Not a problem. An Englishman retired in Spain: He can’t pay the rent any more…

4. UK Companies paying their employees in EU/Euro zone will see the price. But the English will keep the Pound. The Pound protects the island against the snaky French and the German. Rules Britannia, rules the waves… “Flutuact nec mergitur” well, for how long?
The opportunity to join the Euro is lost, thanks to people like the one you read. They will never accept to be wrong. They will never accept to have been manipulated by newspapers owned by foreigners; they will never accept they were just gullible.

5. “our continental trading partners decide not to slaughter each other every half century”
I am sure you did notice some monuments with some names on it in England. The English was part of the slaughter…:beam:

6. “and it is certainly not funded by EU grants”: You are having a laugh…

1. Your living in a dream, even Louis admitted it. From wiki as just one possible source:

1945–1957: Peace from coal and steel
After two devastating world wars, the political climate favoured an international unity that ensured peace. (bombed Hamburg in 1943)

Main article: History of the European Communities (1945-1957)

World War II from 1939 to 1945 saw a human and economic cost which hit Europe hardest. It demonstrated the horrors of war and also of extremism, through the holocaust, for example. Once again, there was a desire to ensure it could never happen again, particularly with the war giving the world nuclear weapons. The countries of Western Europe failed to maintain their Great power status leaving two rival ideologically opposed superpowers.[2].

To ensure Germany could never threaten the peace again, its heavy industry was partly dismantled (See: Industrial plans for Germany) and its main coal-producing regions were detached (Saarland, Silesia), or put under international control (Ruhr area).[3] (See: Monnet plan)

With statements such as Winston Churchill's 1946 call for a "United States of Europe" becoming louder, in 1949 the Council of Europe was established as the first pan-European organisation. In the year following, on 9 May 1950, the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed a community to integrate the coal and steel industries of Europe - these being the two elements necessary to make weapons of war. (See: Schuman declaration).
Robert Schuman proposed in May 1950 the Coal and Steel Community.

On the basis of that speech, France, Italy, the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) together with West Germany signed the Treaty of Paris (1951) creating the European Coal and Steel Community the following year; this took over the role of the International Authority for the Ruhr[1] and lifted some restrictions on German industrial productivity. It gave birth to the first institutions, such as the High Authority (now the European Commission) and the Common Assembly (now the European Parliament). The first presidents of those institutions were Jean Monnet and Paul-Henri Spaak respectively.

After failed attempts at creating defence (European Defence Community) and political communities (European Political Community), leaders met at the Messina Conference and established the Spaak Committee which produced the Spaak report. The report was accepted at the Venice Conference (29 and 30 May 1956) where the decision was taken to organize a Intergovernmental Conference. The Intergovernmental Conference on the Common Market and Euratom focused on economic unity, leading to the Treaties of Rome being signed in 1957 which established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) among the members.[4]

2. We have a floating currency, it goes up and it goes down, so what? We have no more industries anymore because we are a free-market economy that does not use government ownership and trade protection to prop up moribund industries. We are a service based economy, so what?

3. Ah, the lovely idea that europe can seal itself off from the rest of the world within its very own single market, safe from the depredations of johnny foreigner with his radical free-market practices. Comes back to my question about how much continental EU nations trade outside of the euro block. Not an option for us to close our eyes and ignore 48% of our trade.

4. What? I didn't really discern anything worth responding too in this paragraph, so i will just re-iterate my original question; explain how Britain will accumulate a net growth benefit from being inside the euro-zone? And then bear in mind that we don't want the necessary political union that results from economic union.

5. I think we have already been through this at length, but if we look at the major military/humanitarian disasters that result from war (and potential ones) in europe we get a list of:
> 30 years war
> Napoleonic War
> WW1
> WW2
> Cold War
Now here are the questions for the slow of wit once again:
a) how many did we start?
b) how many did we help to stop?
c) how many of them could have been stopped without Britain?

6. No I am not, Ireland has experienced massive economic growth because it is an attractive place to invest, this has been aided by EU infrastructure assistance via grant money, but that does not mean; the EU funded irelands ability to undercut the honourable and just taxation system of good continental nations.

Vladimir

12-15-2008, 19:54

Hmm, a girl with a Wunder Boner. :inquisitive:

A girl who likes arrogant and rude (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2072566&postcount=14) women! :smug:

Thermal

12-17-2008, 16:35

The UK have helped various European countries, it's opposite to what Fat Loui says :yes:

and yes the UK is an island, no sense of geographical knowledge clearly :no:

Furunculus

12-17-2008, 18:01

just for clarity; what specifically are you responding to? it is a little unclear to me at present.

Thermal

12-18-2008, 02:55

just for clarity; what specifically are you responding to? it is a little unclear to me at present.

the OP i think ....

Furunculus

12-18-2008, 09:54

awesome, however i think Louis has given up trying to persuade anyone that Britain is not an 'island'.

HoreTore

12-18-2008, 12:19

and yes the UK is an island, no sense of geographical knowledge clearly :no:

It should be clear to everyone by now that Louis is not talking geographically, he's talking culturally.

"Island" as in "cultural island", which is radically different from a geographical island, because trade, and hence culture, travels faster by sea than by land. And as the UK has relied and relies heavily on sea trade, so are they connected closely to others, hence not being an island.

Gah :wall:

Tribesman

12-18-2008, 13:23

and yes the UK is an island, no sense of geographical knowledge clearly
Obviously written by somebody who has no sense of geography .

Furunculus

12-18-2008, 14:06

"Island" as in "cultural island", which is radically different from a geographical island, because trade, and hence culture, travels faster by sea than by land. And as the UK has relied and relies heavily on sea trade, so are they connected closely to others, hence not being an island.

Gah :wall:

that is Louis' argument, but it certainly hasn't be demonstrated.

Incongruous

12-19-2008, 03:42

Obviously written by somebody who has no sense of geography .

Well it is pretty close, surrounded by water and detached by some distance from the mainland of Europe, it certainly has not stopped countless generations treating it as such. Simply because a Frenchie is having a song and dance about it, is no good reason to change such logic. We are not hurting anyone.

Tribesman

12-19-2008, 04:05

Well it is pretty close
No it is not even remotely close unless you define "an island" as over a thousand islands plus part of another island and some more islands for good measure while claiming others lack a sense of geographical knowledge .

Incongruous

12-19-2008, 05:41

No it is not even remotely close unless you define "an island" as over a thousand islands plus part of another island and some more islands for good measure while claiming others lack a sense of geographical knowledge .

Sounds about right to me:2thumbsup:

At least that is the correct summation of what the UK is within the popular mind, and thus the concept which matters most.
This sceptered Isle is a good piece of evidnece which points the belief among the inhabitants of the UK that they live on an Island, conveniently forgetting Northern Ireland and other little bits. Not really an issue though, since its the idea of an Island mentality which is really got at in this definition.

HoreTore

12-19-2008, 08:46

Tribesman

12-19-2008, 09:03

Are Scousers and Geordies cultural islands ?
or should they be sent to an island ?
OK maybe thats a bit harsh but the Brummies definately should be sent to a remote offshore place .

Furunculus

12-19-2008, 10:25

Alrighty, let's have a look at that "UK is a cultural island"-thingy:

- Language. How many different ones do you find in the english language?

- Music. How much british music is played in mainland europe? How many of the great continental composers(Mozart, Beethoven, etc) have influenced the musical scene in the UK? How much has music from the UK influenced the rest of europe?

- Architecture. Does the UK reject continental ideas in this area, and does the continent reject british ideas?

- Theatre. Same questions as for music.

etc, etc...

Answer these questions, and I can't see how you can come to any conclusion other than Britain being an integral part of Europe, as much as France, Spain, Germany or Italy.

No. One. Has. Denied. That.

Yesterday it was stated that half of Britons have a foreign ancestry, any my family is French Huegenout in origin, but that is irrelevant.

What matters is the British perception of itself and its place in the world, which leads us to believe that we do not need the EU* whereas many continental countries come to the opposite opinion, both for rational and understandable reasons.

We are european, but we have no desire to become EUropean.

* By which i mean federated future alluded to by the phrase; "ever deeper union".

Sarmatian

12-19-2008, 14:11

Yesterday it was stated that half of Britons have a foreign ancestry, any my family is French Huegenout in origin, but that is irrelevant.

I just lost all respect I had for you :laugh4:

Furunculus

12-19-2008, 14:14

is it the french'ness or the Huegenout'ness?

Husar

12-19-2008, 15:00

So all that matters, as always, are the delusional thoughts people made up for themselves to get a sense of superiority, no wonder the world is doing great. :inquisitive:

By the way, I can now get 0.929 pounds for a Euro. :2thumbsup:

Furunculus

12-19-2008, 15:09

that dratted human penchant for individual thought, the cause of so much progress and so much disaster. if only the human race were a collective hive mind with a single unified goal............

Husar

12-19-2008, 18:46

Furunculus

12-20-2008, 03:12

so if only they weren't human?

Husar

12-20-2008, 13:47

so if only they weren't human?

You mean I must be a robot because I never started a war? :inquisitive:

Incongruous

12-21-2008, 03:02

Eh, no, if only humans were individuals without that hive-mind-like thinking of nationalism that creates virtual hives they call nations which then engage in pointless wars over made-up constructs of glory and honour. :dizzy2:

WTF?

What on earth does this have to with the discussion. No matter how Humans see themselves they will always fight and kill, be you Tribesman or Citizen. It matters not.

What this discussion is really about, is taking the UK down a peg or to by trying your hardest to tell us who were are or are not, for no good reason.

Husar

12-21-2008, 16:26

WTF?

What on earth does this have to with the discussion. No matter how Humans see themselves they will always fight and kill, be you Tribesman or Citizen. It matters not.

What this discussion is really about, is taking the UK down a peg or to by trying your hardest to tell us who were are or are not, for no good reason.

So first you complain that my post has nothing to do with the discussion and then you complain about the discussion, which has a very good reason, having fun. ~;)

But I do not see how the discussion is supposed to bring you down, it's supposed to make you accept your european brothers instead of trying to stay alone on your little island playing empire when you aren't one anymore. The world wants to welcome the British but for some reason they don't want to welcome the world. :shrug:

Furunculus

12-21-2008, 18:40

couple of points:
1. We accept our europeanness, but that does not mean we wish to be assimilated by the EU 'borg'.

2. We do accept the world, we trade all over it, more as a percentage of the total than any other EU nation i'll wager when considering trade outside the EU bloc.

3. Maybe a freudian slip on your part, but the EU does not equal the world.

Husar

12-22-2008, 00:34

couple of points:
1. We accept our europeanness, but that does not mean we wish to be assimilated by the EU 'borg'.
Okay, maybe i got a wrong impression there about your europeanness.

2. We do accept the world, we trade all over it, more as a percentage of the total than any other EU nation i'll wager when considering trade outside the EU bloc.
Yes, that is nice, but trade isn't everything.

3. Maybe a freudian slip on your part, but the EU does not equal the world.
Well, it is the first step in europe towards the world government, you may not believe it but your great grandson will live it. ~;)

Incongruous

12-22-2008, 00:36

So first you complain that my post has nothing to do with the discussion and then you complain about the discussion, which has a very good reason, having fun. ~;)

But I do not see how the discussion is supposed to bring you down, it's supposed to make you accept your european brothers instead of trying to stay alone on your little island playing empire when you aren't one anymore. The world wants to welcome the British but for some reason they don't want to welcome the world. :shrug:

Oh please, I am not and niether are my countrymen playing Empire and niether are we closing ourselves off to the World, you know this and what you posted was garbage, I have not enied the UK as being part of Europe, its just that as far as I and the vast majority of my fellows are concerned, it is an Island.

What this boils down to as it seems to me, is about some people being all upset by our continued national narrative of an island, part of Europe, but not bowed to the same continental winds as you are, somehow different.

In effect, a petty grievance and nothing more.

Furunculus

12-22-2008, 10:34

Okay, maybe i got a wrong impression there about your europeanness.

Yes, that is nice, but trade isn't everything.

Well, it is the first step in europe towards the world government, you may not believe it but your great grandson will live it. ~;)

very nice of you to admit it.

so as well as trading with the world, and travelling in droves all over it, and acting as a massive hub for education from other parts of the world, we are still lacking a certain something?
perhaps we should have mandatory world empathy sessions set-up in every village across the land to ensure we are suitably 'nice' world citizens.

i certainly hope not!

Louis VI the Fat

12-22-2008, 17:31

Husar

12-22-2008, 18:45

That's a nice box of crayons. :yes:

Louis VI the Fat

12-22-2008, 18:56

:jumping: I made you a drawing with them! :jumping:

https://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3397/husaryc5.jpg

Justiciar

12-22-2008, 22:02

You could also say that they're all unique. My brother compulsively assorted his pens and pencils by colour, keeping them seperate so that he wouldn't have to fuddle his way through the chaotic jumble. I believe he still does this.. poor swine.

I don't believe anyone in this thread has meant to say that the mighty crayon of Britain hovers beyond the rest in a hallowed none-European packet of its own; only that its distinct hue means that - as with my brother - it and all other crayons should be kept seperate. This doesn't mean they cease to be crayons and instead become unique utensils, but rather that they aren't kept tightly bound into a single card-and-plastic prison rubbing up against one another and getting chalky bits in all the wrong places!

I personally just throw all my pencils in a single draw. If I had any skill, I'd thereby be able to whip them all out at once and finish a work of art in little-to-no time, with minimal fuss. And lets face it.. who has room for a score of bickering pencil cases? Not I. My wardrobe is small, as is Europe.

...

For I am Justiciar, Ruiner of Metaphors!

Incongruous

12-22-2008, 23:24

You could also say that they're all unique. My brother compulsively assorted his pens and pencils by colour, keeping them seperate so that he wouldn't have to fuddle his way through the chaotic jumble. I believe he still does this.. poor swine.

I don't believe anyone in this thread has meant to say that the mighty crayon of Britain hovers beyond the rest in a hallowed none-European packet of its own; only that its distinct hue means that - as with my brother - it and all other crayons should be kept seperate. This doesn't mean they cease to be crayons and instead become unique utensils, but rather that they aren't kept tightly bound into a single card-and-plastic prison rubbing up against one another and getting chalky bits in all the wrong places!

I personally just throw everything in a single draw. This works fine for me.

...

For I am Justiciar, Ruiner of Metaphors!

:yes:

I never knew crayons could be so profound...

CountArach

12-22-2008, 23:32

:jumping: I made you a drawing with them! :jumping:

https://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3397/husaryc5.jpg
:laugh4:

Husar

12-23-2008, 00:42

I like that Louis. :2thumbsup:
I will put it on the fridge so I can look at it often.

Boyar Son

12-23-2008, 03:59

lol Britain's an island. or what is it then?

Furunculus

12-23-2008, 11:55

The topic of this thread is not 'the UK must/musn't be a member of the EU/Euro/European federation'. The topic deals with the step that precedes that. With the myths that surround and cloud the debate about the EU in Britain. The subject is to rubbish several of these national myths about Britain.
These myths play a large part in the British debate about the EU. Which, of course, is why I brought them up. That is only the relevance of this thread and the topic, but not the topic itself.

A box of crayons.
Each one is different. But, none can claim to be unique in being different, since all of them are different from one another. This is the fallacy.

We are not interested in ever deeper union. And it certainly is not a price we are willing to pay given that many of the understood benefits of that ever deeper union do not really apply to us.

Here is a national myth for you; we don't get invaded very much. that certainly does influence my thoughts when i think about the EU.
You haven't managed to rubbish much of anything, you haven't managed to demonstrate much of anything, this thread is dead in the water as far as advancing your intention goes, but it has been an excellent thread insomuch as it has allowed me to explain why we don't really give a damn about ever deeper union.

Your crayon analogy doesn't really apply, because there are lots of continental nations that are willing to move with the ever deeper union momemtum, which is there choice, but does remove the defence that they are all unique in this respect.

Louis VI the Fat

12-23-2008, 13:36

I'm sorry, but any statement, for or against, about an ever deeper union neither agrees nor disagrees with what I've argued in this thread. It is neither the point nor my intention of this thread.

After the crayon metaphor, now the Michigan analogy:
Michigan is culturally obviously different from all of the other 49 states. It doesn't get invaded much by the Union. It is culturally much closer to British commonwealth countries like Canada than to Alabama. Split in half by the Great Lakes (well one of them, but I don't remember which one ~:mecry:), it has a unique geography - which is the cause of Michigan's uniqueness.

This all means that we ought to speak of 'Michigan AND the United States'. And all those unique aspects of Michigan must be taken into account when dealing with the Union. In fact, any Michigan politician who doesn't insist upon them when dealing with non-Michiganese is selling out Michigan to the US. Any opinion an American gives about Michigan is suspect and must be met with due hostility in return.

Furunculus

12-23-2008, 13:59

Well Louis, you have me at a loss. :dizzy2:

This thread sprang directly from the; "is it time for Britain to join the euro" thread, and the entire theme of your arguments have run in the direction of exposing the the ridiculous obstinacy with which the UK acts towards all attempts to become involved in EUrope, resulting from Britains flawed idea that we think we don't have exactly the same problem and share the same goals as the more enlightened countries of the continent.

But if it isn't about that, then you are going to have to tell me exactly what you do wish to discuss..................... :wall:

But even if you are trying to engage in some higher level philosophical debate with the argument that the UK is no different, you cannot ignore the primary expression of this pathology which is the fact that:
1) We do hold ourselves apart from EUrofication. (island mentality)
2) The continent on balance does not. (enlightened and glorious EUropean mentality)

So we are both different (in this respect), and an island (as we behave to our neighbours).

Justiciar

12-23-2008, 22:30

The following statement will add nothing to the disputed subject. It's just a personal gripe I have about the flow of the debate so far and the wording used. It isn't aimed at anyone in particular, I'll hastily add:

In brief, I'd like to point out that there is no collective opinion in Great Britain. The use of the terms "us" and "you" are being bandied about as if the entirety of the British nation fell into a single eurosceptic camp. This is not the case, nor has it ever been so. I myself, a Yorkshireman by birth and a Mancunian by the grace of God have been a supporter of central government and integration since first I became politically aware. I'd hazzard a guess that I am not alone in that, even in these forums. A majority are opposed to the EU. That's hard to deny; a brief conversation with ten randomly selected joes will usually reveal this to be true. Some would even say an overwhelming majority, though I suspect this often wildly exaggerated. Either way, a large portion is not tantamount to a whole.

What I'm trying to say is; don't simply ignore the opinions of those who disagree with you or contradict your side of the debate by proclaiming that the entirety of a nation stands behind/against your argument.

That's it.

Whinge over.

Furunculus

12-23-2008, 22:49

you are quite correct, there are a couple of your lamentable persuasion even here. ;)

when I say "us/we" i am referring to a majority of the british public, not everyone, but given the number of times i have to state my case it is much easier to abbreviate it.

Louis VI the Fat

12-24-2008, 01:16

Well Louis, you have me at a loss. :dizzy2:

But if it isn't about that, then you are going to have to tell me exactly what you do wish to discuss..................... :wall:I set out to challenge several opinions about Great Britain and its role within the EU that I consider based on myth.

I did read all your posts with great interests! I am not the referee over what anybody posts here or the direction any debate follows. Write what you want to share. I do not want to read what I think, I want to read what everybody else thinks. One can do me no greater disfavour than by saying 'what an excellent post, Louis, I couldn't agree more!'

I am not here to convince, never mind to preach, I am here to learn. We won't end this thread agreeing with one another. Nor do we have to for a satisfying, fruitful debate. So far, I have greatly learned from your efforts and from your sharing your thoughts and opinions here, for which my thanks.

Furunculus

12-24-2008, 09:55

ah well, in that case my thoughts are summed up by:

1. the EU was invented by france to ensure that germany never invaded again, germany was a bit embarrassed and so complied, their neighbours thought that was a jolly good idea too. not a problem Britain has.

2. socialism took a firmer grip on the continent than ever did here, and the consequence is a much greater enthusiasm for regulation in matters socio-economic. we freebooting Britons pillaging the high financial seas see this as a threat to our competitive advantage.

3. the continent as a result of the 30 years war, the franco-prussian war, the first world war as well as the second and many more, has suffered centuries of political instability repression and revolution. how many continental countries have not been facist, communist, revolutionary, and invaded in the last 350 years? the EU therefore represents stability to many nations, not a problem Britain has.

4. for an economic union to work, in the bad times as well as the good, there needs to be a large element of political union; who is the lender of last resort, why should germany bail out italy's fantastic attempt to make the euro worthless, etc. we don't necessarily want a political union, we have an exceptionally successful political model already, and no-one has demonstrated why an extra layer of EU federalism is an improvement.

5. we are rich in absolute and comparative terms, will joining the euro make us richer or poorer? certainly no-one has persuaded me that joining the euro, with all the harmonisation that entails, will do anything but reduce britain's competitive advantage.

6. we have a history with, and a duty to, the commonwealth nations to assist them in their socio-economic development, and we like the freedom to recommend our political structures and structure economic packages to their benefit as we see fit. specifically, we dislike EU trade protectionism and the damage we feel it does to developing nations, especially given the skepticism with which we view aid programs. there is no question that greater involvement in the EU further reduces our options with the developing world generally, and the commonwealth in particular.

7. similar to #6, there further we integrate the less free our hand to act as we please, which is fine if we acted in concordance with the rest of the continent because we amplify our message, but bad if we have divergent views because our own will be watered down among 300 million continetal voices. if Britain decides it wants to join america in invading somewhere then i don't want to euro apparatchik telling us we can't because we signed up to a common foriegn policy!

how's that do for you?

Vladimir

12-29-2008, 16:59

"I think therefore I am" seems appropriate and saves five or so pages. :book:

It's also strangely sad to see the "blame the U.S." trend is diminishing. Ever since I realized that the French love to be reviled I grew to like it. People are forgetting the key role the U.S. played in forming the EU.

Sarmatian

12-31-2008, 01:53

Watchman

12-31-2008, 08:50

Furunculus

12-31-2008, 10:16

I don't know why you keep bringing this on. After WW2, Germany was in no position to threaten France in any way. Partitioned, no army, no economy, no political influence, not to mention that a little later France became a nuclear power. Since Germany wasn't (and still isn't and won't be), no military threat to France from Germany exists.

Granted, UK is somewhat different to most European states in that regard and London is still one of the world's top financial centers, but is going to change and importance of London as a financial center is going to decline. By using "channels" (I'm sure there's a better word, but nothing comes to mind right now) from the times of the empire, London still controls a good chunk of money flow from southeast Asia and Middle East and that is going to change in favour of new financial centers that are emerging there... I expect that in several decades, UK will adopt the Euro and start integrating more in EU. Maybe even earlier, it depends on a huge number of factors...

because france had feared germany for the previous 100 years as a result of the demographic slide of former relative to latter, of which the last grasp for dominance by france was the franco-prussian war. one does not cast aside a hundred years of decline especially after two world wars have just been fought on your front lawn. wiki ssums the situation up nicely (quoted below).

Britain is a financial hub for more reasons than just history, though that plays a large part. Not so long ago that position was occupied by New York, which goes to show how important the regulatory environment is. this along with that history, the ease of movement of people, language, culture and institutions all play their part.
Yes Britain will decline, all of the old west is declining relative to the 'new' east, and we will certainly decline all the faster if we integrate our financial sector regulation with that of europe.
You might be right about the timeline, I for one won't put any certainty on predictions cast decades into the future.

Furunculus

12-31-2008, 10:23

The kinds of ideas about closer economic cooperation across state borders that the EU stems from were being floated around already in the interwar period, you know. One reason was that the benefits of scale the US derived from the sheer size of its internal market were not lost on Euro economists.

Anyway, what can be regarded as the concrete first step in the chain that led to the present EU was the Coal And Steel Union formed between France, Germany, the Benelux countries and maybe someone else (can't be arsed to check the details ATM) shortly after the war; the direct impetus was a distruption in the supply of English coal due to domestic reasons that put French industry in a tight spot, and convinced them to start looking for alternate suppliers and arrangements.

Furuncu wasn't entirely incorrect, however, as one important consideration in the various postwar cooperative agreements indeed was binding the interests of at least the big boys of the block (initially France and Germany) so closely that they'd be flat out forced to cooperate and compromise with each other in the future. The downsides of confrontational competition and "me-firsting" had, after all, become demonstrated concretely indeed in the recent few decades...

from wiki:

1945–1957: Peace from coal and steel
After two devastating world wars, the political climate favoured an international unity that ensured peace. (bombed Hamburg in 1943)

Main article: History of the European Communities (1945-1957)

World War II from 1939 to 1945 saw a human and economic cost which hit Europe hardest. It demonstrated the horrors of war and also of extremism, through the holocaust, for example. Once again, there was a desire to ensure it could never happen again, particularly with the war giving the world nuclear weapons. The countries of Western Europe failed to maintain their Great power status leaving two rival ideologically opposed superpowers.[2].

To ensure Germany could never threaten the peace again, its heavy industry was partly dismantled (See: Industrial plans for Germany) and its main coal-producing regions were detached (Saarland, Silesia), or put under international control (Ruhr area).[3] (See: Monnet plan)

With statements such as Winston Churchill's 1946 call for a "United States of Europe" becoming louder, in 1949 the Council of Europe was established as the first pan-European organisation. In the year following, on 9 May 1950, the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed a community to integrate the coal and steel industries of Europe - these being the two elements necessary to make weapons of war. (See: Schuman declaration).
Robert Schuman proposed in May 1950 the Coal and Steel Community.

On the basis of that speech, France, Italy, the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) together with West Germany signed the Treaty of Paris (1951) creating the European Coal and Steel Community the following year; this took over the role of the International Authority for the Ruhr[1] and lifted some restrictions on German industrial productivity. It gave birth to the first institutions, such as the High Authority (now the European Commission) and the Common Assembly (now the European Parliament). The first presidents of those institutions were Jean Monnet and Paul-Henri Spaak respectively.

After failed attempts at creating defence (European Defence Community) and political communities (European Political Community), leaders met at the Messina Conference and established the Spaak Committee which produced the Spaak report. The report was accepted at the Venice Conference (29 and 30 May 1956) where the decision was taken to organize a Intergovernmental Conference. The Intergovernmental Conference on the Common Market and Euratom focused on economic unity, leading to the Treaties of Rome being signed in 1957 which established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) among the members.[4]