Brexit Thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

First of all, to those who are confused by Greyblades' comments on that video - that's because Greyblades is wrong.

Let's deal with the point one by one.

1. "We Won the War" or, how we see Europe. Unlike the other nations of Europe we were neither aggressor now victim in either world War and ther is a sense that, perhaps, we could have stayed out of both and kept our Empire, or at least have disposed of it with more grace. Instead, millions of our men were killed and maimed so that France remained France, Belgium Belgium and Poland Poland. Our view of Europe has, therefore, more in common with the US than with either France or Germany. We are essentially immune to both the French sense of vulnerability or the german sense of Guilt. To ask why we still "harp on" about the war is like asking why the Germans still have war-guilt that prevents them deploying troops en masse even in peacekeeping efforts despite the size of the German army. Nor do we have hangups over Russia from being part of the Warsaw Pact.

In essence - we have no psychological investment in the EU, only a desire to trade

2. The British, especially English, legal system was built up from the bottom, Roman and Napoleonic law was codified at the top. While it's true that French judges interpret the legal code and the English Parliament makes laws the difference is in the way our laws were developed. French/Roman Law was created when a group of jurists sat down and attempted to codify a legal system to cover all eventualities, this law was then interpreted by judges and sent back to the legislature for amendment. In the British system the law is created by judges when they hear cases, it is then sometimes refined by Parliament but the crucial difference is that rather than senior jurists in Paris or Rome deciding the shape of the law the law is instead decided by a local judge in a small town, and it then filters up through the courts as the decision is applied and then appealed. As the decision is appealed it passes from Magistrate, to District Court, to High Court, to Appeals Court and finally to the Law Lords.

So, in the British system law is created by judges as needed which is why the British press will make a thing out of EU regulations defining the difference between a Class 1 and Class 2 cucumber - this is not a necessary regulation (they taste the same) and therefore its imposition is the imposition of a foreign concept. Interestingly, since we joined the EU we have seen the Law Society try to "codify" our legal system through "repeal acts" that seeks to "clean" the Statue Book of laws no longer deemed applicable.

Another example that deeply offended people at the time was the metrication of coinage, and then of weights and measures. This was, at the time, an entirely top-down imposition which had no benefit to the British people - not least because metric measures actually tend to be less precise (a 30th of a inch is smaller and a millimetre, for example).

3. Finally, we have the language and movement issue. It is completely true that the British are, along with the Americans, inflicted with a peculiar handicap. Being British abroad is a study in embarrassment if you are not a complete oaf. You pull out a phrase book, or you try to speak in the language you learned in school only to be met with "oh, you're English!". I feel sorry for the Scots and welsh - but aside from that the fact is that children soon get wise to this and don't bother much with other languages in school. At the same time, Britain is an attractive destination for everyone else in Europe because you all speak out language and can get on and find a job without that barrier.

at the same time, we DO have an issue of overcrowding, and people ask "we are we allowing more people in when we can't even house our own people and find jobs for them?"

It's a legitimate question.

To be clear - he's talking as much about British perception, as reality.