Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Bannasidhe

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I would somewhat disagree with you there, compare the map of Europe in 1910 to the map of Europe today. The trend over the last few hundred years is for greater self determination and the break-up of large empires. We are a product of this process ourselves, and the UK may be about to enter a period of further fracturing into smaller constitutiant parts.

That is one of the best features of the EU if you ask me. It allows small nations to have their independance, to express their self-determination, while still enjoying the benefits of belonging to a larger polity.

In historical terms 1910 is yesterday and somewhat distorted as it was the last hurrah of the Age of Empires.

Taking the long view the trend is towards consolidation.

England itself is the consolidation of different kingdoms. In their cries for 'self determination' English nationalists are playing a dangerous game as their own country is quite Londoncentric and the economic divide between North and South is pronounced. The old 'Danelaw' region, for example, could use the exact arguments used by 'English' nationalists to call for a break away from a government dominated by Mercia.

CelticRambler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The USA, all it's states, have common language, cultural tradition, economic philosophy and goals. This binds the country together in patriotism and achieving.

If you seriously believe that, you need to review your understanding of the USA.

And if you don't believe that different European states (<-- yes, states, like the Irish State) have a very long, very deep shared cultural and linguistic traditions, you haven't been paying attention in school. To keep things vaguely Brexit related:
English language : largely a mixture of Germanic, Franco-Latin and Scandinavian vocabulary
Royal Family: related to the royal families of Prussia, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, Greece
Official English Religion: Anglicanism, an off-shoot of Catholic Christianity, imported from Italy
All those cathedrals - built according to the instructions of continental architects, who trained English architects who then built similar edifices on the Continent
Hyde Park - served as the inspiration for the creation of the Bois de Boulogne
And, of course, The War (both of them) - possibly the Greatest British Obsession, fought almost entirely on French, German, Dutch, Italian and Austrian soil.

I don't know where you hang out at weekends or where you go on your holidays, but anyone who travels around Europe with their eyes open can see the traces of 2000 years of shared cultural and economic heritage. You cannot argue the same for the US of A, which didn't have a shared anything until the Europeans crossed the Atlantic and took their petty disputes with them.

Imreoir2

CelticRambler wrote: »

You're looking at it too short-termly! Bannasidhe was referring to a longer historic pattern - something I came face-to-face with in the last fortnight, stomping through the territories of Savoie and Dauphiné, with a gaze cast towards Piedmont in the distance bouncing off the enclave of Orange (as in house of King Billy). Eventually they all decided to row in behind the King of France ... except for Piedmont which was left for the Italians ... but then the lads from Savoie borrowed a bit of Italy as a kind of retail therapy, which is why they still speak French there on the wrong side of the Alps in the north of that country.

Not sure how much choice was involved in most cases.

I think you are looking at it in the wrong way, the history of Europe in recent centuries is a painfull process of emerging nationalism. In some parts of Europe nationalism ment the collection of territories into a larger whole, Germany and Italy being the prime examples. In other parts of Europe, nationalism ment breaking down larger multi-ethnic entities into smaller nation-states. The UK, the Austrian Empire and the Russian Empire are examples of this. The conflict and tension caused by these different forms of nationalism has defined the history of Europe over the last three hundred years. The bloodletting it unleashed accross Europe is part of the context for the creation of the EU, a place beyond nationalism, where your nationalism and mine can co-exist peacefully.

Bannasidhe

CelticRambler wrote: »

If you seriously believe that, you need to review your understanding of the USA.

And if you don't believe that different European states (<-- yes, states, like the Irish State) have a very long, very deep shared cultural and linguistic traditions, you haven't been paying attention in school. To keep things vaguely Brexit related:
English language : largely a mixture of Germanic, Franco-Latin and Scandinavian vocabulary
Royal Family: related to the royal families of Prussia, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, Greece
Official English Religion: Anglicanism, an off-shoot of Catholic Christianity, imported from Italy
All those cathedrals - built according to the instructions of continental architects, who trained English architects who then built similar edifices on the Continent
Hyde Park - served as the inspiration for the creation of the Bois de Boulogne
And, of course, The War (both of them) - possibly the Greatest British Obsession, fought almost entirely on French, German, Dutch, Italian and Austrian soil.

I don't know where you hang out at weekends or where you go on your holidays, but anyone who travels around Europe with their eyes open can see the traces of 2000 years of shared cultural and economic heritage. You cannot argue the same for the US of A, which didn't have a shared anything until the Europeans crossed the Atlantic and took their petty disputes with them.

Not to mention the amount of land still owned by the descents of Norman invaders who were, themselves, of mainly Norse decent.
Even the Daily Mail had published an article stating that the way to get ahead in England is to be 'Norman' not Anglo-Saxon.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2479271/1-000-years-invaded-need-Norman-like-Darcy-Percy-ahead.html

Strazdas

CelticRambler wrote: »

If you seriously believe that, you need to review your understanding of the USA.

And if you don't believe that different European states (<-- yes, states, like the Irish State) have a very long, very deep shared cultural and linguistic traditions, you haven't been paying attention in school. To keep things vaguely Brexit related:
English language : largely a mixture of Germanic, Franco-Latin and Scandinavian vocabulary
Royal Family: related to the royal families of Prussia, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, Greece
Official English Religion: Anglicanism, an off-shoot of Catholic Christianity, imported from Italy
All those cathedrals - built according to the instructions of continental architects, who trained English architects who then built similar edifices on the Continent
Hyde Park - served as the inspiration for the creation of the Bois de Boulogne
And, of course, The War (both of them) - possibly the Greatest British Obsession, fought almost entirely on French, German, Dutch, Italian and Austrian soil.

I don't know where you hang out at weekends or where you go on your holidays, but anyone who travels around Europe with their eyes open can see the traces of 2000 years of shared cultural and economic heritage. You cannot argue the same for the US of A, which didn't have a shared anything until the Europeans crossed the Atlantic and took their petty disputes with them.

GB went to war in WW1 to aid neutral Belgium and in WW2 because of their pact with neutral Poland.

The English nationalists / Brexiteers would have told them all to eff off and refused to help anyone.

CelticRambler

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Do I smell an EU4/CK2 player?

.... ummmmmm .... maybe .... if I knew what that meant!



:eek: Oh, it's actually a thing (thanks google)! No - I was stomping with my real feet on actual Savoie territory, yesterday admiring (what's left of) a 550-year-old door with an inscription on it saying (I'm paraphrasing the original French) "those Dauhphiné feckers tried to break us, but failed" (la cité de Pérouges, if you're interested)

Anyway, back to Brexit ...

Bannasidhe

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Not sure how much choice was involved in most cases.

I think you are looking at it in the wrong way, the history of Europe in recent centuries is a painfull process of emerging nationalism. In some parts of Europe nationalism ment the collection of territories into a larger whole, Germany and Italy being the prime examples. In other parts of Europe, nationalism ment breaking down larger multi-ethnic entities into smaller nation-states. The UK, the Austrian Empire and the Russian Empire are examples of this. The conflict and tension caused by these different forms of nationalism has defined the history of Europe over the last three hundred years. The bloodletting it unleashed accross Europe is part of the context for the creation of the EU, a place beyond nationalism, where your nationalism and mine can co-exist peacefully.

Very little choice in most cases.

And yes - the scourge of nationalism has caused untold misery across Europe but the fact remains that post Fall of Rome the overall trend has been towards consolidation. England, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, etc are the products of this consolidation.
At times these attempts overreached themselves (in a European context the Austrio-Hungarian empire would be the prime example) and as empires followed the traditional model of the 'lesser' regions being little more than suppliers of raw materials/consumers at the mercy of the primary state (aka original conqueror) this fed nationalism.


There has been a continual tension between nationalism and consolidation. Brexit is that tension made manifest. Part of the reason for the existence of the EU is to help diffuse this tension caused by consolidation in a format vastly different from the old Empire structure.
There is no 'motherland' calling the shots - no matter how much Brexiteers would claim there is - what exists now is a collection of states with equal say.

CelticRambler

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not to mention the amount of land still owned by the descents of Norman invaders who were, themselves, of mainly Norse decent.
Even the Daily Mail had published an article stating that the way to get ahead in England is to be 'Norman' not Anglo-Saxon.

If we're following this mixed heritage thing to bitter end, before Eskimo gets back, can I point out (if it needs to be done) that Ireland's most revered patron saint was a Welshman of Anglo-Norman descent who studied a Roman religion in a Burgundian school before returning to the land that would eventually adopt him as one of their own. If we have to reject all things non-Irish in favour of a Brave New Brexit-like World, I suppose that'll be the end of the Parade ...

Bannasidhe

CelticRambler wrote: »

If we're following this mixed heritage thing to bitter end, before Eskimo gets back, can I point out (if it needs to be done) that Ireland's most revered patron saint was a Welshman of Anglo-Norman descent who studied a Roman religion in a Burgundian school before returning to the land that would eventually adopt him as one of their own. If we have to reject all things non-Irish in favour of a Brave New Brexit-like World, I suppose that'll be the end of the Parade ...

psst... Anglo-Roman not Anglo-Norman - himself was around a few hundred years before the Norse started to 'explore' the Seine Valley

Edit: Doh my bad- not Anglo either, the Angles didn't arrive until after the Romans left. Romano-British (as in the Britons) is a more correct description. He was absolutely not Gaelic Irish though which was CelticRambler's very correct point.

black forest

Whenever i hear the old adage of the EU was only meant to be a trade union i remember the successful attempt of the UK 1972 to join this club. From the beginning it was absolutely clear that the EU would be a lot more.




Of course that was ignored for decades by all sorts of different UK governments as they needed a scapegoat for their own failures.

jimmycrackcorm

Strazdas wrote: »

GB went to war in WW1 to aid neutral Belgium and in WW2 because of their pact with neutral Poland.

The English nationalists / Brexiteers would have told them all to eff off and refused to help anyone.

There was a great distaste in the USA to get involved in WW2 until they got attacked.

Whatever about the supposed 'special relationship', I would not bet on Trump coming to the aid of the UK in a time of war.

The US or NATO didn't get involved in the Falklands war and the US told the brits that they were on there own more recently in the gulf when it comes to protecting shipping.

ancapailldorcha

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Do I smell an EU4/CK2 player?

I'm currently enjoying trying to begin learning where to start figuring out EU4.

kowloon

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I would somewhat disagree with you there, compare the map of Europe in 1910 to the map of Europe today. The trend over the last few hundred years is for greater self determination and the break-up of large empires. We are a product of this process ourselves, and the UK may be about to enter a period of further fracturing into smaller constitutiant parts.

Ebb and flow but with the change from kingdoms to nation-states.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm currently enjoying trying to begin learning where to start figuring out EU4.

Getting pissed off with the new DLCs being released every 10 minutes. Would prefer one bigger release that works well.

Strazdas

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

There was a great distaste in the USA to get involved in WW2 until they got attacked.

Whatever about the supposed 'special relationship', I would not bet on Trump coming to the aid of the UK in a time of war.

The US or NATO didn't get involved in the Falklands war and the US told the brits that they were on there own more recently in the gulf when it comes to protecting shipping.

Great Britain has never been an isolationist country in its history : not until the Leave voters / Brexiteers arrived on the scene.

Enzokk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The USA is a country, a nation - the EU isn't.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The USA, all it's states, have common language, cultural tradition, economic philosophy and goals. This binds the country together in patriotism and achieving.

Europe has very little of this.

Economically what has Ireland in common with France?

Socially what has Ireland in common with Slovakia?

Culturally what has Ireland in common with Greece?

The US is probably more likely to see a break-up if they continue on their current trajectory than the EU. I am combining your posts as they are related. You can ask the same question in the US though, other than language and nationality what does a person from Los Angeles share with someone from Alabama?

Economically California is different than Alabama.

Socially California is different from Alabama and culturally, well the love of the Confederate flag should answer that question.

Robert McGrath

The last couple of pages have become a very entertaining and informative history lesson and study of the concept of nationhood - thanks for that, everyone!

CelticRambler

Johnson on Sky/Sophie Ridge in the last half-hour: same old, same old - Corbyn is the Big Bad Wolf, vote for Johnson's oven-ready Brexit and we'll be out by January, and Magic Money For All. Delivered in a fast-flowing stream of soundbitey words and phrases that bear little relationship to the question asked. Oh, and he can't think of anything naughty he's ever done that wouldn't cost him political capital. :rolleyes:

It only been a few days, but I can't help thinking Johnson is going to be progressively destroyed by the other parties if he sticks so rigidly to his handler-approved talking points. It seems like his comfort zone does not extend beyond the safety of a carefully crafted newspaper article: when he's faced with a reactive interviewer or audience, he cannot go off-script without looking hopelessly lost and incompetent.

Side note: is it just me/my browser or has the rewind option disappeared from the Sky live stream?

Wanderer78

CelticRambler wrote:

Johnson on Sky/Sophie Ridge in the last half-hour: same old, same old - Corbyn is the Big Bad Wolf, vote for Johnson's oven-ready Brexit and we'll be out by January, and Magic Money For All. Delivered in a fast-flowing stream of soundbitey words and phrases that bear little relationship to the question asked. Oh, and he can't think of anything naughty he's ever done that wouldn't cost him political capital.

...and he ll probably get it over the line in the end, you d be surprised at the amount of voters that believe his nonsense

Kermit.de.frog

The Irish government is hoping for a Johnson win according to this mornings papers.

They know anything else will see the prospect of a hard land border re emerge.

Professor Moriarty

Nigel giving a very good interview on Marr. Intends to campaign up and down the country and in every constituency. Charasmatic and espousing a clear and singular message. Should do serious damage to the Tories. Go Nigel.

maynooth_rules

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...and he ll probably get it over the line in the end, you d be surprised at the amount of voters that believe his nonsense

He essentially has every single reader of the Sun, Daily Mail, Telegraph and Express no matter what stupid things he says......unless a few move to the Brexit party due to their exciting manifesto

Wanderer78

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Nigel giving a very good interview on Marr. Intends to campaign up and down the country and in every constituency. Charasmatic and espousing a clear and singular message. Should do serious damage to the Tories. Go Nigel.

So Nigel has done a great job for British democracy?

ancapailldorcha

kowloon wrote: »

Getting pissed off with the new DLCs being released every 10 minutes. Would prefer one bigger release that works well.

Not how Paradox works I'm afraid though they're probably done with it for now.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Irish government is hoping for a Johnson win according to this mornings papers.

They know anything else will see the prospect of a hard land border re emerge.

This makes no sense. Labour have promised a People's Vote which is much better for Ireland.

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not how Paradox works I'm afraid though they're probably done with it for now.

This makes no sense. Labour have promised a People's Vote which is much better for Ireland.

What happens if the British people vote to leave again? Will you support honouring it after the second time? Or will it be best of three?

The second referendum lot have only thought about the scenario where it is overturned but not the scenario where the British people vote for it again. I expect the same type of screeching about the result we see now.

The people who want a second referendum see the problem as being the democratic decision of the people.

The people who want an election see the problem as being a parliament who object to implementing the referendum result from 2016.

The problem is that there is a parliamentary logjam that needs to be cleared. Even if there was a second referendum that wouldn't be cleared you'd still have the parliamentary stalemate.

This election is the people's vote. Hopefully people will see sense and vote conclusively for an outcome. The current polls are looking this way.

Professor Moriarty

Wanderer78 wrote: »

So Nigel has done a great job for British democracy?

Not yet but intends to. A true patriot.

Wanderer78

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Not yet but intends to. A true patriot.

Yea, that's right

Igotadose

theological wrote: »

What happens if the British people vote to leave again? Will you support honouring it after the second time? Or will it be best of three?

The vote's being honored now. Not sure what your issue is - what's under debate, is *how* to leave. Once that determination's made, then the government may put it up to a vote. Their choice - Parliament is sovereign.

The second referendum lot have only thought about the scenario where it is overturned but not the scenario where the British people vote for it again. I expect the same type of screeching about the result we see now.

The people who want a second referendum see the problem as being the democratic decision of the people.

The people who want an election see the problem as being a parliament who object to implementing the referendum result from 2016.

Fatuous. Parliament's been struggling for 3 years to implement the referendum result.

The problem is that there is a parliamentary logjam that needs to be cleared. Even if there was a second referendum that wouldn't be cleared you'd still have the parliamentary stalemate.

This election is the people's vote. Hopefully people will see sense and vote conclusively for an outcome. The current polls are looking this way.

They're not voting on the referendum, however. They're voting for MP's.

gooch2k9

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nigel giving a very good interview on Marr. Intends to campaign up and down the country and in every constituency. Charasmatic and espousing a clear and singular message. Should do serious damage to the Tories. Go Nigel.

Caught that myself and thought it was a good interview. He spoke clearly on his concerns regarding Johnson's deal. Some of it would warrant fact checking as we know he can be loose with the truth. Contrast his style to Johnson and it's clear who the most dangerous opponent would be in a debate.

Farage also stated he wouldn't run himself.

Panrich

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nigel giving a very good interview on Marr. Intends to campaign up and down the country and in every constituency. Charasmatic and espousing a clear and singular message. Should do serious damage to the Tories. Go Nigel.

Was he asked about his current position on the single market or the EEA?

Joe_ Public

CelticRambler wrote: »

Johnson on Sky/Sophie Ridge in the last half-hour: same old, same old - Corbyn is the Big Bad Wolf, vote for Johnson's oven-ready Brexit and we'll be out by January, and Magic Money For All. Delivered in a fast-flowing stream of soundbitey words and phrases that bear little relationship to the question asked. Oh, and he can't think of anything naughty he's ever done that wouldn't cost him political capital. :rolleyes:

It only been a few days, but I can't help thinking Johnson is going to be progressively destroyed by the other parties if he sticks so rigidly to his handler-approved talking points. It seems like his comfort zone does not extend beyond the safety of a carefully crafted newspaper article: when he's faced with a reactive interviewer or audience, he cannot go off-script without looking hopelessly lost and incompetent.

Side note: is it just me/my browser or has the rewind option disappeared from the Sky live stream?

The stuff about the hospitals is just classic Johnson, nothing nailed down whatsoever. He talks about 40 new hospitals, then its 6, then its something about upgrades, then its 10 years away, 100 million seed funding. The clearest thing i can get out of it is they are upgrading 6 over the next few years, building zero new.

Terrible interview though, spent as long on the stupid naughty question as on anything else and ridge seemed pleased with herself about it for reasons that elude me.