The United Kingdom; The European Union; NATO: which is the primary sense of identity?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus,

an excellent question, or rather a set of excellent questions.

My identity, well, that's me, Franconicus. I can hardly understand men feeling themselves as English, German or whatsever.
My home is my family, esp. my children.

Of course I have a culture, I come from, I have a mother tongue, and it would be stupid to ignore this.
Anyway, I certainly do not feel as a Bavarian, rather German, in the end most of all as European. What is the European identity. Just look at the common history. From Greek philosophers, Roman law and language, Christian faith to modern times - Enlightment - Democracy - Liberalism and all that stuff. There is a line from Socrates, including men like Seneca, Montesquieu, Hobbes, Morris, Kant, Marx etc.

The European Union is not perfect and the fundament is getting smaller since all the eastern countries entered the union, I think, but it would be foolish to think that anything could get better without the EU. The English will soon see that they are trying to drive on the wrong side of history.

Is there some larger entity, aside from your close family and friends, for whom you would make, or at least risk, significant sacrifice?

[Pannonian]

Wrong side of history? You'd think with the amount of failed predictions last we would be past any ideas of historical determinism.

I keep seeing modern progressives declaring their string of hard won success as some sort of inevitable fate even past the point where the victories stop coming, become so trivial that they stop mattering, or even become deranged and recieve pushback from the very people they once called allies. Yet they keep clinging to a nebulous idea of progress like martyrs and preach it's eventual success as priests do a faith.

The tenacity reminds me of doomsday cults. They reach their apocalypse dates and find them uneventful but the members find themselves too invested in the idea of the oncoming end. So they declare new end times, and after that fails another date is decided upon in a cycle of dissapointment that only ends with the group disbanding or engaging in a suicde pact.

Some of us like the EU because we're conservative with a small c, and would like tomorrow to be pretty much like today, instead of jumping off the edge with no plan in sight. What Brexit do you have envisaged? I'm pretty sure it's quite different from the one Philippus assured me was the most likely scenario, which Boris Johnson and all the other chief campaigners also said was going to be the case.

[Husar]

The English will soon see that they are trying to drive on the wrong side of history.

And this after they've been driving on the wrong side of the road for decades...

[Beskar]

And this after they've been driving on the wrong side of the road for decades...

If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.

Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.

Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.

As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).

This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.

[Beskar]

Some of us like the EU because we're conservative with a small c, and would like tomorrow to be pretty much like today, instead of jumping off the edge with no plan in sight. What Brexit do you have envisaged? I'm pretty sure it's quite different from the one Philippus assured me was the most likely scenario, which Boris Johnson and all the other chief campaigners also said was going to be the case.

This was my mothers reason for voting Brexit.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We know how that went...

[Brenus]

If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.
Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed.
As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).
.

Interesting theory.
Bit of contradiction as Napoleon sold the Louisiana to US so how Louisiana could have imposed the Napoleonic standard?
The 2nd problem is in no official painting Napoleon is shown as left handed, as far as I know...
It seems that the right was indeed used in France. The reason I found, without any certainty, is the use of the 6 horses coach, with 1 postilion riding the head left horse.

[Pannonian]

This was my mothers reason for voting Brexit.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We know how that went...

Does she now know that was a lie?

[Husar]

If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.

Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.

Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.

As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).

This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.

That only seems to be partially true. Especially the comment of Napoleon wanting an advantage in road rage incidents made me very suspicious so I looked it up:

http://www.worldstandards.eu/cars/driving-on-the-left/

It says that in France, the US and also Russia, driving on the right became more common before Napoleon. In France it became the norm after the revolution because freedom, and the US adopted it to celebrate freedom from Britian. It further notes that the only countries to still drive on the left today are Britain and the ones that kept it as a remnant from their slavery to British imperialism. Which basically boils down to free people driving on the right while monarchists/their victims drive on the left.

Also:

The trend among nations over the years has been toward driving on the right, but Britain has done its best to stave off global homogenisation.

And this is why you have Brexit, everything is linked somehow...

[Beskar]

Does she now know that was a lie?

Yes, was very disappointed, felt lied to and cheated.

I said as much at the time, but she put it down as me being Partisan and ignoring the reality of the bus. After all, i must be purposefully ignoring the truth as they stuck it on the side of the bus.

Didn't help that my Uncle was a big Brexiteer either.

Was a trend in my family that me and my cousins all voted for remain, whilst our parents all voted for Brexit.

[Gilrandir]

If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.

Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.

Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.

As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).

This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.

Conclusion: this is the whole world who are driving on the wrong side of the road.

[Pannonian]

Yes, was very disappointed, felt lied to and cheated.

I said as much at the time, but she put it down as me being Partisan and ignoring the reality of the bus. After all, i must be purposefully ignoring the truth as they stuck it on the side of the bus.

Didn't help that my Uncle was a big Brexiteer either.

Was a trend in my family that me and my cousins all voted for remain, whilst our parents all voted for Brexit.

Any others recognising they were lied to?

[Beskar]

Any others recognising they were lied to?

Some people were simply Brexit in that jingo patriotic sense, so regardless of being lied to they got what they wanted.

Bash EU, make Britain Great Again.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Californians can be my cousins because they're coastal and New York played a large role in their settling over the years, even up to today,

I love you too Monty.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.

Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.

Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.

As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).

This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.

Interesting theory.
Bit of contradiction as Napoleon sold the Louisiana to US so how Louisiana could have imposed the Napoleonic standard?
The 2nd problem is in no official painting Napoleon is shown as left handed, as far as I know...
It seems that the right was indeed used in France. The reason I found, without any certainty, is the use of the 6 horses coach, with 1 postilion riding the head left horse.

That only seems to be partially true. Especially the comment of Napoleon wanting an advantage in road rage incidents made me very suspicious so I looked it up:

http://www.worldstandards.eu/cars/driving-on-the-left/

It says that in France, the US and also Russia, driving on the right became more common before Napoleon. In France it became the norm after the revolution because freedom, and the US adopted it to celebrate freedom from Britian. It further notes that the only countries to still drive on the left today are Britain and the ones that kept it as a remnant from their slavery to British imperialism. Which basically boils down to free people driving on the right while monarchists/their victims drive on the left.

Also:


And this is why you have Brexit, everything is linked somehow...

*Cracks historic knuckles*

Ow...

Anyway, the likelihood is that the reason for driving on the left is more prosaic. For one thing, it would originally have been driving and walking, because originally all traffic would go the same way. As to the why, the most likely explanation is actually that it allowed two men to great each other by shaking hands and had little to nothing to do with needing to "whip out your sword".

For one thing, the majority of people did not habitually carry swords, historically. Most people who met on the road would carry a staff, Sheppard's crook or similar.

[Beskar]

I admit, I made mine up to make it sound like I knew stuff. I thought it was pretty convincing at least!

[Furunculus]

Hi all, long time no see!

I don't think the US has any intention of leaving NATO, at least not insomuch as wanting to leave NATO.
As someone else said; NATO is a fantastic vehicle for US ambitions.
Trump appears to want what I want (and there the shared purpose ends): For collective defence to mean something real.
It is not sufficient for the US (and a few honourable exceptions) to be the only one to 'give' to the system, knowing that the rest have atrophied their capability (and public will) to the point where they could not (and would not) give back. That is where we are right now: going to war without belgium is like going to war without your accordian (credit:some famous general).
This is a kick in the pants. What really matters is how europe responds. If they truly intend to meet the Cardiff promise to reach 2.0% within a decade, then all well and good. If not...

As to my identity:
I'm British.
Then Crown Dominion.
Then Commonwealth/Western.
Then World Citizen.

The EU doesn't really factor into it. I'm european, but not in any political sense where i recognise a common-weal, and thus assent to common governance.
The EU is simply an institution, and thus I view it with the same sentimentality as the department of business, innovation and skills (hasn't that been disbanded?).

So, lacking an emotional EUropean identity, what do I think of it as an institution?

1. I think it is insufficiently representative of the British common-weal; in tending to take a more collective view of society than I wish for, and I believe the Country as a whole would accept. This is expressed principally as a function of taxation and regulation. I also think it is insufficiently war'ry, in that it has largely lost its appetite for elective warfare in pursuit of a common good. I understand why this is the case, but I don't agree with it.

2. It is because I am a democrat that the above bothers me; as EU acquires more competences we share a collective governance, as is only proper. This means the majority achiev the consensus compromise, but I cannot accept the outcomes of those compromises as that consensus is too far removed from my priorities. It is not the Britain I want, and the EU feels like a form of gerrymandering to my mind: Achieving an outcome that would not naturally arrive from the British electorate alone.

3. I feel it is a poor form of governance, in seeking to preserve a baseline of harmonisation - in aspic - as a necessary pre-condition for consensus based compromise between different peoples. It is the same reason I like FPTP and parliamentary sovereignty, along with an uncodified constitution, and a lack of any constitutional barriers to change. Everything is there to be challenged, nothing safe from a little creative destruction.

4. In failing to be representative of it constituent peoples, I feel that it is particularly destructive form of governance, particularly for those smaller nations and more vulnerable least able to argue forcefully for their opinion. Mechanisms such as the Euro are used to crush dissent.

So what do I want?

a) well, an essentially sovereign Britain for a start - and I'd have been quite okay with that being as an EU member, but Cameron's failed renegotiation put paid to that.
b) an essentially sovereign Poland/Sweden/CountryX, if that is what they want, but Belgium et-al made sure that even Cameron's meagre concessions would apply to Britain only, and not anyone else.
c) as essentially content collection of EU nations, within the EU, and optionally within a federal Eurozone if that is their wish.
d) happy relations between Britain and the nations of the EU, including a federal entity known as Eurozoneland.

Item b) matters particularly, because it represented an insurance policy in that Britain could always organise a blocking minority to ensure objective a) is not undermined by further moves to QMV with an ECJ that practices judicial activism. Yes, I want the best for them too, but my principal motivation was to achieve a vehicle to perpetuate British sovereignty.

[lars573]

If you want to go there, I will give you a history lesson, boyo.

Ever since before the Roman days, the standard was people being on the left hand side. This is because the vast majority of people are right-handed, thus if there are any issues, they could whip out their sword and defend themselves, using the right hand.

Then Napoleon came to power, who was left-handed. Now, he decided to reverse the standard, which made people who meet on the right to have no defense from the left.. unless they were left-handed like Napoleon. Napoleon decided to conquer all of Europe and force everyone to use the right-side of the road. Some other countries like Sweden later converted for cheaper cars from Germany and other economic reasons.

As for the USA, the standard of the right was present in the old french colony of Louisiana and they were in defiance of the British, who used the left-side. So they used the French to make a statement. Canada later converted due to cheaper cars from USA (economics).

This made most of the world use the right-hand side, whilst the rest such as the UK, Commonwealth, Japan, and others, retain using the left-hand side.

Actually in Ancient Regime France foot traffic kept right, carriages kept left. Canada converted by province (save British Columbia which went in stages over 3 years) in the 20's, and Newfoundland converted on their own in 1947.

[Greyblades]

Some of us like the EU because we're conservative with a small c, and would like tomorrow to be pretty much like today, instead of jumping off the edge with no plan in sight. What Brexit do you have envisaged? I'm pretty sure it's quite different from the one Philippus assured me was the most likely scenario, which Boris Johnson and all the other chief campaigners also said was going to be the case.

You only wanted tomorrow to be like today because you live in the comfort of the London bubble with your curtains drawn and your prospects global.

Less conservative with a small c but an ostritch with a soft bed.

I saw Brexit as a sharp decline followed by a lengthy recovery. Infinitely Preferable to the gradual decline of remaining to fund a sequence of greek, portugese and spanish bailouts as europe rots. The only hope to be unshackled from the listing ship, that doesnt require the 40 year obtusive streak of the EU comission to spontaniously end, would be the EU Banks finally giving up the ghost and even then we end up in the same place we are now, sans a healthy stock market.

This was my mothers reason for voting Brexit.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We know how that went...

The same way the "western political civilisation would be destroyed" brigade went?

Though in the case of your mother at least she can know that there is a possibility that pledge can be fulfilled if we vote in a party that isnt the conservatives.

No membership change will even come close to proving the remainers claim.



As an aside, does anyone actually remember any promises of the Remain's that wasnt continuation, doomsaying? Brexiteers proclaimed the benefits of being free of the crimson tape but all the good I remeber the remain camp promising was destruction if we left and business as usual if we stayed.

Always seemed odd to tout an equilibrium that was becoming increasingly intollerable as a desireable outcome.

[Husar]

As to the why, the most likely explanation is actually that it allowed two men to great each other by shaking hands and had little to nothing to do with needing to "whip out your sword".

For one thing, the majority of people did not habitually carry swords, historically. Most people who met on the road would carry a staff, Sheppard's crook or similar.

Lies, one only needs to watch asian martial arts movies to see that staffs are also used to fight everyone else on the road.

After playing a number of medieval RPGs life simulators I'm also fully convinced that everyone in Medieval times wore at least chain mail and a 5-500 dps sword after running a few errands and killing some bandits for the commander of the local garrison.

[Franconicus]

Is there some larger entity, aside from your close family and friends, for whom you would make, or at least risk, significant sacrifice?

Europe, of course.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Europe, of course.

Not humanity at large and not the land of your birth?

And how do you define "Europe?"

Culturally? Geographically?

[Beskar]

As an aside, does anyone actually remember any promises of the Remain's that wasnt continuation, doomsaying? Brexiteers proclaimed the benefits of being free of the crimson tape but all the good I remeber the remain camp promising was destruction if we left and business as usual if we stayed.

Well, "remain" cannot fundamentally promise anything, since it was a choice between status quo and brexit. There are advantages to staying within the EU, but a lot of people do not understand the complexities or even care about them to bother, so it ends up being redundant.

For example, people say "If we leave the EU, we will get rid of red-tape!" ... nope, it is still there and it still applies when trading with the European Union. But saying nonsense like that makes it sound good like a good thing, even if the facts are non-existent. Reality is, EU reduced red-tape, as instead of 27 countries, each with their unique and different standards, there was a singular EU standard.

[Furunculus]

For example, people say "If we leave the EU, we will get rid of red-tape!" ... nope, it is still there and it still applies when trading with the European Union. But saying nonsense like that makes it sound good like a good thing, even if the facts are non-existent. Reality is, EU reduced red-tape, as instead of 27 countries, each with their unique and different standards, there was a singular EU standard.

That is true in a narrow sense, if you are looking at exports, but:
About 85% of the economy is not engaged in exports, and about two thirds of what remains is for the export in Services for which there has never been a real 'single' market. And less than half of that goes to the EU rather than the RoW. So, all this for 2.5% of the economy!

Fine, that may still be acceptable if you come from a high-regulation society; you at worst be trading one set of regulations for a harmonised other. But what if you came from a society that had a traditionally laisez-faire attitude to business regulation, at least compared to our big continental neighbours?

What we got is the right to massively regulate all of our society, in order that we're compliant for the 2.5% of the economy that deals with the trade in Goods to the EU.
In reality, we get the benefit of the EU by trading with the single regulatory zone that is the EU - rather than being members thereof - as we have one set of regulations to comply with. The EU has done the hard work for us.

Of course, if you are a fan of greater regulation and 'management' of the economy then EU membership is a good thing. But that is a different argument altogether...

[Montmorency]

That is true in a narrow sense, if you are looking at exports, but:
About 85% of the economy is not engaged in exports, and about two thirds of what remains is for the export in Services for which there has never been a real 'single' market. And less than half of that goes to the EU rather than the RoW. So, all this for 2.5% of the economy!

Fine, that may still be acceptable if you come from a high-regulation society; you at worst be trading one set of regulations for a harmonised other. But what if you came from a society that had a traditionally laisez-faire attitude to business regulation, at least compared to our big continental neighbours?

What we got is the right to massively regulate all of our society, in order that we're compliant for the 2.5% of the economy that deals with the trade in Goods to the EU.
In reality, we get the benefit of the EU by trading with the single regulatory zone that is the EU - rather than being members thereof - as we have one set of regulations to comply with.

Of course, if you are a fan of greater regulation and 'management' of the economy then EU membership is a good thing. But that is a different argument altogether...

One thing to note, the 15% figure seems to apply to non-service exports, if $470,000 million/$2,750,000 million.

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/

[Furunculus]

470m would be total exports, not exports of goods.

[Montmorency]

470m would be total exports, not exports of goods.

No, that is not correct.

OECD International Trade in Goods: $511 billion for UK in 2014
OECD International Trade in Services: $215 billion for UK in 2014

[Furunculus]

the difference between the net balance of imports and exports?

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...importers.html

[Franconicus]

Well, two comments:

Blaming Napoleon for British extraordinariness is unfair, I guess. He worked hard to spread civilisation even to the islands in the far west.

Why should right-handed men walk on the left side to protect themselves. Didn't you protect yourself with a shield on the left and attack with the right.

I wonder if the Americans will change to left-drive. This will give better opportunities to use the gun to fire at other drivers and - without a doubt - lead to more safety in traffic.

[Husar]

the difference between the net balance of imports and exports?

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...importers.html

The what? Sounds like the trade balance: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/natio...anceofpayments

In your link the closest I find to the mentioned figures is:

The latest statistics from the Annual Business Survey (ABS) reveal that 15.2%, a total of 310,800 businesses in the Non-Financial Business Economy in Great Britain (GB) engaged in international trade in 2014.

But engaging in international trade would refer to both imports and exports and it does not say anything about trade volume or percentage of economy, but businesses regardless of size and trade volume it would seem.

[Furunculus]

good catch, you're right. circa 15% of businesses rather than 15% of GDP by value.

https://data.oecd.org/trade/trade-in...ndicator-chart

in more detail (pages 4&5):

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...or-support.pdf

export of services ~11%