Great Britain is not an Island

[JR-]

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.