I confess Mark Francois was unknown by me until recently. His recent displays as a Tory MP and member of the hard-Brexit brigade have left me wishing that was still the case. His racist, little Englander, deeply offensive, rant about the CEO of Eurobus on the BBC revealed a ghastly perspective on British history only matched by John Humphrys staggering invitation to Ireland to leave the EU and realign with the UK made in recent days.
I will leave aside all comment about the BBC.
I will not suggest either man was stupid.
I will instead muse upon what both might mean by making these statements. And on that there can be little disagreement. What both referred to through distorted, rose-tinted glasses was the English age of empire. That was the time when England could rule Ireland and not realise it did not have the right to do so (a comment capable of replication many times 0ver). And a time when it could pretend to beat fascism alone, ignoring the fact that so many other nations played a part. And it was a time when our arrogance knew no bounds. As for some, apparently, it still does not.
That era existed. So did that arrogance. I acknowledge it. But to pretend that it was appropriate is wrong. To pretend that we should now live in accordance with that ethos is a decided mistake. And to suggest that this is our national identity to the point that we will separate from Europe to try to recreate it is simply and utterly misguided at every possible level. Not least because it is bound to alienate all potential partners (and I mean, all potential partners) just when we will need them very badly.
But what is most difficult about it is the lack of comprehension as to the sentiment of others inherent in it. Let me be clear that in what follows I acknowledge that all nations are capable of hubris and self-deception as to their importance. I am aware that nationalism exists, and even that it has a role. But that said, there is something at least as important to the foundations of the stability of every state that those making such comments and who embrace such attitudes seem to have forgotten, and that is the need to respect the ‘other'.
Who is the ‘other'? Anyone. Of any nation. Anywhere.
What does ‘respect' mean? Letting them go about their peaceful business in a spirit of tolerance, which can reasonably be expected to be reciprocated.
Those are the simple basic tests for stability. No more are required.
So Britain was right to fight fascism in 1939. Fascists did not and do not let others go about their peaceful business.
But by and large, Germans do. And so do those of most nations in Europe. In fact, if they have a desire in common this might be it. Because they know what it is for such tolerance to fail. And, it appears, some in England do not.
This the English problem. It seems we have never been able to leave alone. Even now. So we have to pretend to still have the right to be different. To alienate. To control.
No nation that has ever left English control has ever asked to come back to it.
I seriously doubt any ever will.
Which is why the collapse of the Union is inevitable.
And right now England's separation from Europe is a cause of such pain to so many in England the UK who would wish that those English who hold this view might see the viewpoint of the other.
But I am beginning to doubt that they will.
And I fear this will exact a terrible price. I only hope that only England pays it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard
I fully support your position here, but would add that, notwithstanding the cosy myth about a nation united in support of fighting fascism, there were many fascists and people who supported fascists among the elites and wider public.
Britain, and especially England, has a long history of militarism, operating a slave economy, and vicious imperialism. I’m currently reading John Newsinger’s study of British imperialism – The Blood Never Dried – which explores a toxic history that has been largely filtered out of our national story.
Michael Oswald’s film The Spider’s Web explores a more recent chapter of Britain’s particular brand of imperialism.
I find it astonishing that so few people in Britain know or even care about how this nation developed and why other countries, in Europe and elsewhere, need to protect themselves from the potentially malign development strategy, known as Singapore-on-the-Thames, that the UK government has been signalling for the past two years.
The ultra-Brexiteers seem hell-bent on using tax wars and regulatory wars to undermine whatever remains of the post-war welfare state. I very much doubt that democracy in England will survive the social strife that this will inevitably cause. And the Scottish and Irish peoples would do well to detatch themselves without delay from this toxic political commitment to a Brexit project that will drag them down as well.
best wishes
JC
JC
You are right to point this out.
The current attiutude is not new. English toxicity has long been a phenomenon.
And I agree with your conclusions
Richard
Irish bigot.
I presume you are aware that your comment pretty much proves my point?
“No nation that has ever left English control has ever asked to come back to it.”
As I understand it the Scots were an independent nation that came under occupation by EdwardI. They subsequently kicked the English out. Four hundred years later following the bankruptcy of the nation through an ill fated and costly colonial venture, the Scots asked the English to bail them out and merged with us in the Act of Settlement. Few Scots doubt this was an English take over that some of their countrymen begged for.
The historical accuracy of your comment is therefore questionable. By your own admission only a small part of the English population voted for Brexit so to wish the English population suffers because of a minority is no different to condemning Jews for the usurious actions of a small coterie of bankers.
Oh come on!
I really think you need to reappraise hat version of Scottish history. This is simply not what happened
And I am not wishing the English suffer
I am hoping no one else does if we fail to stop those who seek to do harm
Although I should know better, I am always astounded that this distorted “story” of that period in Scottish history keeps being peddled out as either a “Scotland was broke – England saved you”, or “See how useless you are, you’ll never survive” meme, and people who actually know what they are talking about are ignored. This level of confirmation bias is a recurring theme in many ‘conversations’ I have online.
If only Scots had been taught their real history in school we might not be in this mess today and Independence would have come a long time ago.
I am also dismayed that Mr. Espin thinks there is any comparison between a democratic process and what happened to the Jews in 1930s throughout history – this is not a recent phenomenon.
Is this the level of ‘debate’ we can expect in these last few crucial weeks? Lordy I hope not.
Hi Richard, i’m not a historian but Scotland was under the English hammer, threw it off and then reunited with England. That refutes your point, if i’m wrong perhaps you or Tony Little or Graham could spell out exactly why or cite a reference. I agree with John Christensen but Scotland was a willing partner in Britain’s imperial excesses, purely for profit. I’m not promoting any memes about Scotland’s independence, i’m sure they have the talent to go it alone should they decide to. Circumstances change through time, attitudes and beliefs that suit one generation are alien to subsequent ones, but history repeats.
The title of your blog post flies in the face of your claim that you do not wish the English harm although i’m sure you don’t really. The Welsh voted out too, but it’s the English that come in for your ire.
Tony Little, I didn’t mention the 30s i’m talking about now!
All these theories about the yearning for Empire and a little Englander mentality held by a minority neglect the simple fact that people voted out for a whole host of reasons. I agree John Humphrey’s was exceptionally crass even for him, to suggest Eire should leave to suit us. Obviously both sides have their nutters. I find it difficult to understand how anyone can hold the view that we should have completely open borders but some remainers advocate that position. I don’t tar all remainers with that brush.
With respect, go and read some informed Scottish history and stop quoting imperialist versions from the 1960s at me
And there is no country called Eire
Get your facts right and stop proving my point
Phil,
I recommend that you read Chapter 1 of ‘The Scottish Nation 1700-2007’ by Prof TM Devine for an accurate history of the prologue to and immediate aftermath of the Act of Union of 1707 (the paperback edition is inexpensive). It’s not a dry academic treatise but is written with commendable clarity and attention to detail. Once you’ve digested its content you might be able to comment sensibly on the topic.
@ Phil Espin
Complete balderdash, I’m afraid. The 1707 Union was engineered by a ruling class that had had its fingers burned in the Darien debacle, and proceeded to use every means at their disposal -threats, bribes, you name it – to suborn the Scottish Parliament into consigning itself to oblivion.
And, incidentally, one of the key players in this BREXIT-like exercise of “dark money” was Daniel Defoe, who was busy in Edinburgh fingering likely turncoats, whose mouths (to repeat Nye Bevan’s phrase about the recalcitrant medical profession and their opposition to the NHS) he sought to “stuff with gold”.
Defoe had his reward in many ways, not least in the possibility that, while there he came across the story of Alexander Selkirk, the real life prototype for Robinson Crusoe.
The Scots, however, paid dearly in the century that followed, suffering that Highland Clearances that denuded so much of Scotland of people (producing, incidentally, that “romantic empty wilderness” state, so beloved of travellers and visitors, such as Prince Albert and Queen Victoria, but which masked the real violent injustice and suffering that had produced it) who were pushed to the margins, eking out an existence processing kelp on the sea shore, and even if that being mainly to profit the rapacious landlords who had driven them from their land, replacing them with sheep!
On this last point, 18.5 million Scots left Scotland between 1814 (30+ years after the Clearances began) and 1914 (Source: The Sea Kingdoms: the History of Celtic Britain and Ireland, by Alistair Moffatt. Birlinn Press, 2003. ISBN 13: 978 1 846158 717 2 – pg 277), so that one Clan Chief was able memorably to say, when Army Recruiters came round in the Crimean War: ” Since you’ve preferred men to sheep, you may recruit sheep”, and sent them away with a flea in their ear.
Scotland’s current wish for independence – not yet shared by a majority, but likely soon to do so – is completely understandable. After all, if you’re floating at sea, after a shipwreck, you really don’t want to be shackled to a spar that is itself in danger of sinking beneath the waves.
Thanks Andrew
Neatly summarised
Thanks, Richard.
Of course, a point I missed is that those Scottish noblemen were so keen to see the Union, because the English Government had promised to reimburse their losses in the Darien venture – caused by their own blind greed.
So, somewhat as the bankers in the Great Financial Crash, they were rewarded for their own greed and incomptence, while England, of course, acquired a pool of manpower at a knock-down price, without a shot being fired, unlike in India.
One could say that, like Esau, those Scottish noblemen “sold their birthright for a mess of pottage”. But of course, in true shyster fashion it was their ordinary fellow countrymen’s birthright, which was not theirs to sell, that they sold, just as the bankers in e.g. USA lwtcrhe ordinary folk’s mortgages be terminated, while they rushed off chuckling with the funds under TARP (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program)
Thank you Andrew. That’s broadly what I understood, the elite ignored the wishes of the people (no referenda in those days) and voted by a big majority to merge with England for their own selfish financial interests. Richards point is that no nation voted to come back under English control, I guess he does not think the Scots Parliament of the time represented the nation. I wonder if he will think the same if the UK parliament manages to ignore the wishes of the people and evades Brexit?
How can you ignore everything that you have just been told and maintain the argument?
Nor least because you might need to explain when Scotland left before 1707 for your argument to work
Have fun with that
You are correct. The referendum asked simply stay or leave. No promise was made regarding leave with a deal or only leave with no deal. You can hardly blame the leave campaigners for no deal as they were never placed in a position to determine the negotiation strategy. The Conservatives backed a remainer! Regarding the Union and it being a sell out of Scotland I agree, however I find your attitude to the 1970s sell out rather strange. You would like to stay in the EU, but are opposed to the ruling elite giving away your self determination. As an Englishman l fully support Scottish independence and pray it happens soon.
People voted leave and remain for many reasons, but in the end leave won. So as I hope for Scottish independence so I hope for My own.
Honestly, I’m not trying to boost sales of Prof T M Devine’s history books, but since Andrew Dickie raises the issue of the Highland Clearances, may I draw attention (for anyone interested in this topic) to Prof Devine’s most recent work: ‘The Scottish Clearances – A History of the Dispossessed’.
In it he produces copious and convincing evidence that the Clearances in the Scottish Lowlands, which began before those in the Highlands, and were every bit as devastating in their impact on the non-land-owning population, although hitherto much less well-known.
Thanks!
I’m not ignoring everything I’ve been told. Ken Mathieson made a helpful suggestion and i’ve ordered Prof Devine’s book.
Scotland was occupied by England for most of the period 1296 to 1357 and again during the English civil war. It’s Parliament then voted to merge with England. Will be interested to see what Devine has to say.
Occupation is your precedent?
I think to suggest you are clutching at straws is too kind
Why do uninformed English views on the Scotland / England relationship from 1707 to this day always revolve around England bailing out or subsidising the Scots. It’s a laughable victim complex just like the Brexit one. Poor old us, put upon and unappreciated, saved the Jocks after Darien, saved the world from Hitler and now we’re gonna go down the garden and eat worms.
As I understand it, it was England that needed bailed out – bankrupt after going to (yet another) war with France – and so the treaty of union. Scotland, the country, was in no way bankrupted by the (Ill-advised, and supposedly backed by England financially) Darien affair, it was the (already well-bribed) elites that were bankrupted – and of course they were in charge of Scotland, because Scotland had had the English feudal system foisted on it by then.
I may have a few details not exact, but it was definitely England that was bankrupt at the time.
I put no store on history, typically it is abused by bigots to support whatever they want.
Similarly, I feel no guilt or regret for actions made at a different time by other people.
Borders are typically an artefact of history, being prepared to move them easily might make the world easier to manage.
And so?
Nigel’s comment is a gratuitous, offensive insult that tells us much about him and the problem of attitudes towards the “other”, while Phil needs to read a little more (actually, a lot more) history, about the events leading to the Union.
In “Rule Britannia” Dorling & Tomlinson explain how the baleful, malign influence of our imperial past on the national psyche and the subsequent creation of a rosy imperial mythology led inexorably to the Leave vote. They show how so many of the attitudes of bigotry, racism, exceptionalism, superiority have their roots in Empire and how a failure to come to terms with its loss created a mindset, in some, receptive to the lies and distortions of the Leave campaign and the attitudes of many of those in government schooled (aka trained) in imperial values.
You say the roots in empire – I would say the roots are in human nature. In particular leaders gaining excessive testosterone that affects their perception and behaviour.
If you are against the British Empire perhaps you might consider that the EU is exhibiting the same traits and path as the british empire. Building roads, standards, laws, new courts, reinvesting some of the money that accumulated in the manufacturing centres until the weight of policing an empire and in Rome the change of being ‘Roman’ with its rights, duties and responsibilities given away like candy in particular handing out of citizenship cheaply brought the empires all crashing down.
So how long will the EU empire last? Has it any of the signs, will Britain and Germany Holland still be able to fund everyone else’s party?
I have read nonsense in my time
But that takes some beating
Blame the English again. We have been living with this for decades. Have you ever considered that the wish to leave the undemocratic EU may be the correct course of action.
Have you looked at what is happening at Westminster?
Can you tell me that it is democratic?
Speaking as an Englishman, yours is an understandable sentiment.
I do hope that lessons are learnt if we leave but I also worry that England will enter a phase of orthodox economic self flagellation as well political implosion that I think will herald a new dark age in our land.
Such a situation I think might cause problems on the European mainland too – I can see us ending up supporting more extremist groups in Europe who wish to destabilise the economy and the polity there.
The principal tool by which this will happen will be the internet. I read today that 1 in 20 Britons do not think the Holocaust took place. I was looking at a collection of photographs by Lee Miller today that like many other forms of evidence tells you that it did.
The potential abuse of information that can be whipped up by our media and online to wind people up and set them at each other’s throats is massive. Until I see some concrete proposals for handling this sort of agitation, I will continue quite rightly to have some very grave concerns about the future of this country.
Ask yourself this: Do I want live in a country with a continuous cycle of deprivation and wealth destruction caused by fiscal austerity that is reinforced by divide and conquer policies that means that any opposition is nullified and our rich tormentors are locked in so that the abusive cycle can never ever be broken?
Because that is the journey we are on with May & Co.
You are right…
I do not consider what is happening at Westminster to be anything other than a circus. One thing is clear the referendum was explicit in that the majority of those that could be bothered to vote want to leave the EU. Since that time the people of the U.K. have been bombarded with project fear and some politicians who are members of political parties that fought the last election on a promise to respect the referendum have sought to undermine the UKs negotiations with the EU and also remain in the EU in all but name. This is the mess we are in and sadly only a ‘no deal’ Brexit will now honour the referendum and the pledges made by the two main parties. I have no doubt this will cause problems, but I suspect we will survive and in my opinion thrive. Whether this whole thing is the fault of the English I doubt. I suggest you look at the lies our own politician told in the 1970s and since and also the history of the EU. It always was aiming at a federal state from its very roots and this is unacceptable to many of us.
Leaving the EU did not mean No Deal
And that was not what Leave said would happen
Please stop lying about what people voted for
Because that is what you are doing
I didn’t vote leave because I was told to vote leave. I voted leave because I do not wish to become part of a federal states of Europe. Yes I would have liked a nice little deal, but not one that keeps us in a vassal state relationship. So deal or no deal is irrelevant I voted to leave the EU. In my opinion the reactions of the pro remain ruling elite have undermined the negotiations and the belief that we could remain in the single market has been an unrealistic aim. I also believe that the English voted leave because we have never been comfortable with the so called European project. Perhaps you should read FCO 30/1048 and dwell on the insights contained in the document.
You did that
But that is not what the referendum required
You cannot extrapolate your view
P H
I have just read the book ‘ This Blessed Plot’ written in 1998 by Hugo Young all about Britain’s relationship with the EU. I think that you should read it. His book begins in the post war period and ends just as the Blair Government was promising a new dawn in EU relations.
If you don’t want to read all 500+ pages , here are some headline observations that might interest you:
1) The overwhelming reason for the UK entering the common market/EU was economic. The gains there were seen as and have been immense. Most Britons were worried about price rises but when we went in, prices actually dropped. They were not that worried about sovereignty – those worries are actually more recent. BTW Trade in the EU works. Nissan and Toyota set up here in order to access the European market and rejuvenated out motor industry for example and the Euro projects such as Airbus share out the jobs for members sectors. That means a lot in Sunderland and Derbyshire. Economics was king P H.
2) The focus on the economic gains however meant that the sovereignty issues were over looked. The EU always made it clear that it was going to be an economic, political and monetary union. It never lied about its intentions. Ever. Many English politicians did wring their hands about this from Wilson, Heath to Thatcher. But it was felt to be a hot potato because the issue was the difficulty in admitting that the UK was actually better off in the EU – part of something bigger – rather than the old imperial England standing alone. After WWII, our empire days were over. Our politicians had real problems getting that over to the British people as well as dealing with it themselves.
3) As our former Empire began to turn into a ‘commonwealth – (yeah – right!), many of those former countries where we held sway began to seek wider markets anyway to sell more to a post war world getting back on its feet. They just did not want to trade exclusively with us anymore or use the UK as a middle man. Therefore siding with a post war rejuvenated Europe (especially one that was growing faster than the UK) made sense for us.
4) Many an English politician – Bill Cash and Margert Thatcher (Lamont too and others such as Tony Benn) actually started off as being pro-EU in outlook. However, they began to change their minds and turn away from the idea. The reasons for this are complex. Some were turned off by the negotiations on trade where they felt the deal was a bit hard on the UK ; others by the reception they got when the UK wanted to drag its feet about something.
This ‘feet dragging’ – sometimes a deliberate intent to slow the development of the EU down – is what got us a bad reputation to begin with in Europe. We were very ambivalent about the whole thing (Young uses the word ‘inchoate’. It is a fitting word). This is why de Gaulle vetoed our membership initially saying that we were not ready. From that point onwards, UK membership was always viewed with certain amount scepticism by the other members. The Europeans – wanting peace and no more war – simply pressed on.
Why did the EU want the UK involved? Well, Churchill had advocated the creation of a European union to create peace in the zone. The Europeans respected our role in the war, our political system of parliamentary sovereignty and even the level of public discourse about politics and its apparent openness (having lived under the Nazi yoke however and still being threatened by the USSR, who wouldn’t?).
There is also evidence that Thatcher’s turn against the EU originated outside the cabinet in the form of Alan Walters – her economic advisor who usurped Lawson (who also changed his mind). It is also revealed that Thatcher actually did not like Germans at all and felt that the country was getting too big for its boots. Young notes some embarrassing incidents and notes that Thatcher’s increasing anti-EU stance was a major reason for her being forced out as Leader.
Euro-scepticism really came to a head under Major of course and his infamous bastards – and although Major is revealed as being perhaps the most reasonable and stead fast of prime ministers (the other being Heath) he too wrestled with the economic benefits versus the loss of sovereignty to Brussels and the ECJ.
So P H, all in all there is a lot going on and although Hugo Young believes that our politicians could have been clearer, the problem is that they had mixed feelings about Europe all along especially in terms of the sovereignty issue. It was unresolved.
There is one thing though that I think is overlooked. Remember that the UK had opt outs and even refunds from the EU. So the issue with sovereignty these days is a non-issue to me.
My reason is that the UK is represented at the European Council of Ministers where EU policy is made. Our ministers have gone into that Council to agree things on behalf of the UK. Then they have gone home and then had second thoughts. So they have agreed matters only to come home and then disagree about what they have just agreed later. Bizarre but true.
And then they have made their concerns public and then slagged off the EU and joined up with other Euro haters who have been drip-feeding the British public what is tantamount to their own duplicity for years. Young actually suggests that these politicians – brought up on a diet of our history and past greatness – actually hate themselves more than anything else for going along with something that felt wrong to them but also right – economically at least.
There maybe all sorts of reasons for this P H but my view is that too many of our politicians have been unable to reconcile the economic benefits of being in the EU with the obvious responsibility of conforming to the treaties and obligations of membership like everyone else. They just cannot do it P H . Because they feel diminished by agreeing to it – as politicians and as English men and women.
And they have also made that the public’s problem too.
The euro sceptics and UKIP contingent (and this includes Thatcher and others) opted consciously to think in historic (rather than contemporary) terms of ‘British greatness’ and ‘independence’ as well as I’m afraid a fair dose of racism based on racial stereotyping of EU member states to replace a perfectly good trading treaty.
They – all BREXITERs I’m afraid – have put xenophobia before economic common sense and stability.
Had Hugo Young been around today, he would be aghast at where we are now, but something tells me that he would not be surprised.
Finally, my view is this: We should leave the EU as our ruling politicians cannot handle it. They are too conflicted. They will just keep on taking it out on us. So, we should however stay in the single market as many of them (even that Tosser of Tossers, Daniel Hannan) originally said. We need a Norway deal.
This means that our politicians can kid themselves that we are still a great stand alone nation who does not need anyone (thus they can be happy) but preserves the single market for the rest of us poor fuckers who survive on less than £74,962.00 (MPs current salary I think plus expenses) a year (and those in ministerial posts get even more) and for whom the single market keeps life affordable (just).
Best,
PSR
Thanks
PSR
Thanks for this. I can’t remember where I sourced this article from – possibly this Blog. However, this is an interesting treatment of the EU and sovereignty, through the lens of regulation from Open Democracy, under the title:
“Why Brexit won’t work: the EU is about regulation not sovereignty”.
If it has been posted here already, it fully bears being reposted:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/anthony-barnett/why-brexit-won-t-work-eu-is-about-regulation-not-sovereignty
Thx for the reply I respect your opinions. What was GDP in 1973? Can’t remember whether it was 7 or 8%? Strange that Thatcher giving the poor unions a kicking had nothing to do with our current economic position. What is our GDP now? In fact didn’t unemployment rocket after joining the EEC? How we forget I convenient things.
I am not sure what 7 or 8% might mean?
Might you clarify?
Have you inflation adjusted?
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
“Finally, my view is this: We should leave the EU as our ruling politicians cannot handle it.”
A very interesting and thoughtful piece, Pilgrim, as usual. Hugo Young has clearly been very influential recently and I don’t ague with the thrust of what you are gleaning from his analysis and conclusions.
But I do have a major problem with the conclusion you have come to if that really IS your considered opinion. It has been clear to me all through the Brexit debacle that the Brexiteer argument (if that is not to the over-dignify a great deal of fantastical blethering) has consistently sought to blame the EU for the inadequacies of our own politicians; on ‘sovereignty’, on immigration, on the cost of membership, on delusions of former grandeur and our place in the modern world.
It is not the EU we need to be free from, but a generation of inept and unthinking ‘politicians’. The remedy for the current malaise lies at our own door. We need to recruit a better class of intelligent politicians. In the meantime we are better off relying on the European Parliament to prevent some of the self harm our own incompetents seem ever more keen to inflict on the nation they purport to love so dearly.
The only viable way to prevent this imminent destruction of the UK is to rescind Article 50 and sort ourselves out on the domestic front. Then and only then might it be possible to come to acceptable terms with being part of the worlds greatest trading block and get some social cohesion going on within and without our shores.
There was an interesting article in today’s ‘Observer/Guardian’, by Jeremy Cliffe. He makes the point that no-one whose ancestry is only from the UK has ever been subjected to the displacement and uprootings suffered by so many Europeans during and after the Second World War.
My mother had two close friends who were, immediately after the War, co-opted from the UK Civil Service to the UN Commission for Refugees for several years. They heard so many tales of fear and alienation – neither would ever forget what they saw and heard, and both ladies became early advocates for a united Europe. They watched while one was created with the positive involvement of the UK, during the Fifties, Sixties and later, and rejoiced. They’d made friends with many of those whom they’d helped, and when I went to live for a few years in Europe, they put me in touch with those friends, with many of whose families I am still in contact.
I’m glad that Rossie and Gladys didn’t survive into the twenty-first century. They’d have been appalled by the current state of affairs in today’s UK.
I must go and read it….
I have been rather avoiding the papers today
Sanity requires it sometimes
You imply the English are fascist, rascist etc..compared to who exactly?
Comparison is not the basis of this argument
Fact is
I have worked offshore on the rigs for years and the bigotry and racism shown by the Scots is at another level..some might say it’s justified by history others born out of jealousy.. anyway it is there.
So your country has been denied its freedom and fleeced of is assets and you’re meant to say thank you? Is that what you think? Really?
I rest my case
So rasicim is justified then
I did not say that
I was asking if you understood the anger
Mike
I hear plenty of English folk taking the mickey out of the Scots, Irish even the Welsh. But let us be clear: it’s at policy and Government level where things get really serious and where the worst impact is made and always will be.
Look at the attitude to the Irish back stop for heaven’s sake.
Viewing all this from north of the border it appears that the bulk of the people of England are at the mercy of a small ruling class, whose outlook appears to be based on Anglo-Norman values of the middle ages. This outlook respects no one, not even other members of their own class, and is on display daily in the proceedings of the Westminster parliament. Any suffering to be brought on the bulk of the people of England can be laid at the door of that elite. Democracy is completely absent from the ruling mindset.
On a point of detail, commenter Tony Little says “If only Scots had been taught their real history in school….”. I wonder how many in the UK are aware of how difficult this has been made by the actions of Edward I and Oliver Cromwell, both of whom, when in occupation of Scotland, arranged for the removal to London of as much archival material as they could lay hands on. This was for ‘safe-keeping’ but none seems to have survived. We possibly know more detail of the social and commercial affairs of Babylon than we do of Scotland in the middle ages since more Mesopotamian archives are available than Scottish ones!
That’s respect for you……………
Oh dear. Replace ‘English’ with ‘black’ or ‘women’ or ‘muslim’ and see what happens. It would be defined as a ‘hate crime’ & proceedings would follow.
You clearly wish the English who voted leave harm – not good for a Quaker is it?
You are clearly not reading what I wrote
I wished only the English suffer the consequence of their own decision
You cannot possibly draw your conclusion from that
To put it another way – your claim is entirely false
But I doubt you will apologise
But suppose the decision is beneficial. And based on all the territories of Europe that avoided communism and EU membership, it might be beneficial as they are all better off on mainstream measures of prosperity than their nearest EU member. You may think the UK will be an outlier and suffer negative consequences, but please entertain the thought that it ends up being beneficial.
If that happens, would you prefer
1. The benefits accrue to all of the Union
2. The benefits accrue only to England
If your answer is 1, then you are an ugly anti-nationalist, given your wish that all disbenefits ( if there are any ) fall only on the English.
You are now revealing your true colours
You are a tax haven apologist who cannot work out why their GDPs are so high
You are wasting my time
Nevermind anyone that starts with “Oh dear”.
Offering not just gold but
Alien Act 1705
Most people live in the present not the past. Your broad sweeping castigation of brexiters as imperial apologists only serves to drive the wedge of polarisation deeper.
I fear keen remainers like yourself (and keen brexiters too) are becoming so fearful and angry that they won’t get what they want that they are oblivious to the division they are helping to create.
You hope the pain of Brexit falls on England.
I hope most Britons will keep calm and muddle through regardless of the increasingly loud shrieks of alarm from both sides. There are, after all, much worse things that can happen to the UK than Brexit not going exactly as certain loud and connected people want.
Climate change >>> Fascism >>> Brexit (or Remain/Chequers, depending on your point of view)
There is no chance of muddling through
Sorry, but that’s just naive thinking
There will be pain
Andy Crow
Thank you for your thanks (and Andrew Dickie too whose article he attached is a good read and very pertinent and adds to Young’s hypothesis considerably ).
Andy, my fist position is that BREXIT should be rescinded on the basis that the referendumb result is unsafe. It is Parliament’s job to do this as sovereignty lies in that place. That has always been my avowed position. The interim head of the Electoral Commission has more or less said that we can’t really do referenda like 2016 again.
However, this is a very exceptional point of view – a very minority one (but one that I feel cuts through the emotion of it all).
‘It is not the EU we need to be free from, but a generation of inept and unthinking ‘politicians’.’
I agree Andy – but time is marching on and finding a better way to do this is should be the focus.
That is why I advocate GRADUAL political and legal untangling with an emphasis on retaining all the benefits of being in the single market – like a Norway deal.
I’m not sure if even this is now possible but all I can think of is what I would be saying to the EU as leader of this country in this scenario.
I go back to Hugo Young who tells how Edward Heath (who took us in) wrote a communique to EC leaders at the time that many in the EC felt was one of the best, most heartfelt and honest statements about the UK in the EC at the time from any prime minister before or since.
It was not the detail the EU wanted see, but the intent, the feelings, the ‘vision thing’.
Later on, in conversation with John Major, Young points out that even Major knew that the EU and its aims and objectives was (still is) swathed in emotion, whether it is from remembering the awfulness of two world wars with millions of human beings ploughed into the ground as well as the sentiment to be heard in Beethoven’s 9th Symphony.
So if I was talking to the EU I would dispense with the infamous English reserve, the haughty indifference, the inscrutable look, the projection of superiority and be very un-English in my approach instead, begging for forgiveness and to be given a deal, be humble – even apologising . Yes, a very supplicant approach would be needed.
And I produce below the lyrics to Ludwig’s opus ‘Ode to Joy’ that even contain the consequences of not getting into the spirit of things. And that is it Andy. England has never really entered into the spirit of what the EU is about. Can it? Not at this time Andy – not at this time. Which is why we need to leave with a deal.
ODE TO JOY
O friends, no more of these sounds!
Let us sing more cheerful songs,
More songs full of joy!
Joy!
Joy!
Joy, bright spark of divinity,
Daughter of Elysium,
Fire-inspired we tread
Within thy sanctuary.
Thy magic power re-unites
All that custom has divided,
All men become brothers,
Under the sway of thy gentle wings.
Whoever has created
An abiding friendship,
Or has won
A true and loving wife,
All who can call at least one soul theirs,
Join our song of praise;
But those who cannot must creep tearfully
Away from our circle.
All creatures drink of joy
At natures breast.
Just and unjust
Alike taste of her gift;
She gave us kisses and the fruit of the vine,
A tried friend to the end.
Even the worm can feel contentment,
And the cherub stands before God!
Gladly, like the heavenly bodies
Which He sent on their courses
Through the splendour of the firmament;
Thus, brothers, you should run your race,
Like a hero going to victory!
You millions, I embrace you.
This kiss is for all the world!
Brothers, above the starry canopy
There must dwell a loving father.
Do you fall in worship, you millions?
World, do you know your creator?
Seek Him in the heavens;
Above the stars must he dwell.
For the first time since I joined your blog I have had to stop reading at the halfway point – just too sickened by the utter, incomprehensible, inhuman, stupidity of our politicians that is the leitmotif of the piece.
Ode to Joy! Even this morning’s Jupiter symphony on R3 could not save me from falling into utter depression. Nessun Dorma is more appropriate.
There is something a bit weird and scary about the empire nostalgia brigade, not scary in the sense that they are actually going to take over and ruin everything. They are a minority within a minority not the least bit practical and, in political terms, they’ve probably peaked already.
Its just the thought that a sizable section of the born-to-rule mob have gone seriously potty, away from reality, off with the pixies and most of them weren’t even born at a time when the faintest glimpses of Empire still remained. Their fantasy is all based on legend and wholly contrived.
This is less of a political issue and more of a mental health problem.
Does anyone remember this (for example):
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/boris-johnson-poem-burma-rudyard-kipling-mandalay-a7975246.html
Clarification: where I note that: “a sizable section of the born-to-rule mob have gone seriously potty”
I mean more so than usual. Considerably more.