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.

[CountArach]

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-]

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.

a gateway is a very good description, rather than being either/or.

[Ignoramus]

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.

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.

[JR-]

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]

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]

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

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

[JR-]

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

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

debatable whether that is necessarily a good thing, many nations think otherwise........

[Ronin]

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.. but it´s not my concern.

[Louis VI the Fat]

My principle point is that Britian is indeed different in part due to our geography

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

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

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-]

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]

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.

[Strike For The South]

Francophilia runs rampant in this thread.

[Incongruous]

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]

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

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-]

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]

“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…

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

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-]

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.

[edit] screwed up [/edit]
about 40/60 in goods.

[Yoyoma1910]

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

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloa.../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-]

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

[Yoyoma1910]

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]

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.

[Yoyoma1910]

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.

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-]

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.

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]

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.

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


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-]

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]

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

[JR-]

probably not.

[JR-]

a great example of that 'difference':
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...lks-begin.html

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