Great Britain is not an Island

[Louis VI the Fat]

Warning! EU talk!

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]

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

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 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]

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

[English assassin]

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-]

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]

to Furunculu

[Louis VI the Fat]

I want some of what Louis is smoking.

Never anything stronger than Gauloises, I'm afraid.

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]

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?


How successful has Britain been in promoting sovereirn stability among its neighbours -
> How many western european countries successfully fought off Napoleon?
None.
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]

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.

> 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]

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]

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]

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."

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?

[Yoyoma1910]

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]

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?

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

[Incongruous]

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

Tell me where I was wrong?

[Yoyoma1910]

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]

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 (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]

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.

[JR-]

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 (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-]

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?


How successful has Britain been in promoting sovereirn stability among its neighbours -
> How many western european countries successfully fought off Napoleon?
None.
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]

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]

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]

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.

[Hax]

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]

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

The Brits did hold off the German forces.

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]

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]

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-]

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]

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]

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.