Wow. So... if you were in a room with 27 other people trying to sort out what to do, you'd just up and leave because having all those other people involved was not to your advantage?
If the other 27 decided to do something that I didn't want to do then you're damn right I'd reserve the right to walk away rather than be forced to go along with it.
It's emotionally incontinent toddlers like you that have wrecked this country for the rest of us. Of course being in a union involves collective decison making and the renunciation of the right to flounce.
As you were not told to grow the fuck up when you shouldhave been your utter febrile pathetic stupidly is about to economically cripple us all.
. England will then have lost another part of its first empire, reminds me of the knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, no legs, no arms, but still posturing.
Just what was England's second empire, please?
The first being other nations on the British Isles,
The second being the America’s. when territories that became USA was lost lost in 1770s focus moved to south and eastAsia, Middle East and Africa, much of which then became part of third empire.
Yes - the East India Company, for example, was looking east, as it were, whilst the western colonies were being lost. IOW, the empires sort of overlapped each other, IYSWIM.
After Brexit, Scottish Independence comes down the line. As an English person, I say all the best to them if it’s what they likely decide. Will then be a fast tracked application to join EU, and yet another border headache.
Thank you. The chance of a Tory-dominated England requiring that Scotland stay out of the EU as part of any independence deal are surely quite high. I think Scotland is better off helping the sensible parts of England and Wales kick the Tories out. But then I thought that last time.
England will then have lost another part of its first empire
Scotland was never part of England's empire, any more than Newcastle was.
I think that it is useful to think of what the consequences of actions mean and feel like for parties involved rather than strictly legal nomenclature.
In 1707 Scotland formed a Union, signed by parties who had an interest in it taking place. Therefore not in legal terms a takeover, or colony status. But since Scotland then lost its parliament, not to be reinstated until late 20th century. Until then all social structures except for legal system and education were integrated with England.
You then had highland clearances undertaken by English landlords or aristocratic low lander Scots in effect part of and agents for the English establishment.
If you uselocation of power, and actual ability of other parties to challenge that power a criteria to define empire structures, then clearly that was the relationship between England And Scotland
For Scottish independence, Brexit creates a whole shit load of additional problems. I don't think rejoining the EU is going to necessarily be a problem, the Scottish economy may take a few years to recover from Conservative rule from Westminster but is robust enough to meet all EU membership requirements and there's some sympathy within the EU towards our predicament of being a pro-EU nation being dragged out against our will.
The big problem is the border and trade with/through England. The 2014 question was straightforward on this point, it would be a border between two nations within the EU. This time round the question's going to need to include both a border agreement between two nations outwith the EU, but also looking forward to it being a border between a nation in the EU and one outwith the EU. The end point would be that there would probably need to be arrangements for the border similar to the Irish border ... and we know how much of a mess that is in.
Quite right, nevertheless I am sure looking forward to Brexiters getting their knickers in a twist over it.
To describe Henry's lands as an empire is therefore a misnomer; to describe it as an English empire is completely wrong.
Never the less it is known as the Angevin Empire headed by the King of England
Angevin means of Anjou, which was a county in France; it is known incorrectly as an Empire because nobody at the time ever called it an Empire or called Henry II Emperor, and it was not headed by the King of England in his capacity as King of England.
Sorry - it's a reference (derived from another Shipmate) to a Certain Poster who struts across the chessboard of a thread, understanding nothing, knocking over the pieces, pooping on anything anyone else says, and still thinking he's winning...
I name no names, but let the reader understand.
(It's certainly not you @Suffolk Rob , I hasten to add!)
Of course being in a union involves collective decison making and the renunciation of the right to flounce.
Yes. Which is why so many of us don’t want to be in one. Or at least not that one.
I mean, look at Scotland. They freely chose to join a union with England, which they called the United Kingdom. And now a lot of them want to leave it because the collective decision making of the union isn’t to their liking. Do you consider them emotionally incontinent toddlers as well?
(For the record, I’m fully in favour of Scottish independence should that be what the majority of the population of Scotland chooses. I just don’t see how anyone can support an independence vote in one case but not the other.
second fiddle to Germany just isn't good enough for them.
Nor should it be.
So who would you prefer? The USA? China? Russia? Because we don't "rule the waves" any more. Our best hope of continuing to punch above our weight in international affairs is to align ourselves with a superpower. Until Brexit we were aligned with one superpower (the US) and were actually one of the most important and influential members of a second (the EU). In the last four years, all of that, forty-plus years of political capital, has been pissed away - for what? So the Bullingdon boys can continue to dodge taxes and the Mad Mophead can pretend to be Churchill? Forgive me for being entirely underwhelmed. I am still reeling from the shock of discovering that it is possible for people to starve in one of the richest countries in the world.
To describe Henry's lands as an empire is therefore a misnomer; to describe it as an English empire is completely wrong.
Never the less it is known as the Angevin Empire headed by the King of England
Angevin means of Anjou, which was a county in France; it is known incorrectly as an Empire because nobody at the time ever called it an Empire or called Henry II Emperor, and it was not headed by the King of England in his capacity as King of England.
It seems that 'some late-20th-century historians have combined British and French historical accounts of Henry, challenging earlier Anglo-centric interpretations of his reign.' (from Wikipedia, so it must be True.)
IOW, he might equally well be called King of France, with England etc. as part of his Angevin Empire...
Though Henry II didn't claim the crown of France, Edward III did in 1340, and the Hundred Years War was fought to enforce that claim. George III was the last English monarch to claim the title "George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith", though he dropped the claim in the French throne in 1801 (the Jacobite pretenders maintained the claim for a few more years).
Of course being in a union involves collective decison making and the renunciation of the right to flounce.
Yes. Which is why so many of us don’t want to be in one. Or at least not that one.
I mean, look at Scotland. They freely chose to join a union with England, which they called the United Kingdom.
'Freely'? Oh dear. I don't think it's as simple as that. I'm not even an amateur Scottish historian but I'm guessing that the centuries of events leading up to the UK alliance, are horribly mangled, complicated and usually nothing to do with 'free' in terms of the democratic will of the people.
However, I don't think independence for Scotland would be simple either. No more than leaving the EU is proving to be despite the Leave campaigners' promises. It is worth pointing out, however, that just because a nation might not wish to be in co-dependent relationship with its border neighbour, it might not still want to be in closer economic/cultural relationship with a federation of other countries with whom it feels a greater alliance. It may look like the same principle of independence at work in both cases. But the UK is no EU - take that positively or negatively, as you will. Not parallel cases at all, in other words. It's possible even a loyal British Scot feels more alienated than we realise by Westminster than, say, the average loyal Unionist in Northern Ireland. You'll certainly see more Union flags in Ulster than in Scotland, in my experience!
Personally, I haven't been convinced yet that Scotland would be better outside of the UK. Or that it would be accepted for EU membership should it leave the UK. And again - personally - I think this is entirely the wrong time to be preaching IndyRef while people are still dying from this virus and the economy is tanking. But I'm not Scottish and it's just my observation from the 'outside'.
Of course being in a union involves collective decison making and the renunciation of the right to flounce.
Yes. Which is why so many of us don’t want to be in one. Or at least not that one.
I mean, look at Scotland. They freely chose to join a union with England, which they called the United Kingdom. And now a lot of them want to leave it because the collective decision making of the union isn’t to their liking. Do you consider them emotionally incontinent toddlers as well?
(For the record, I’m fully in favour of Scottish independence should that be what the majority of the population of Scotland chooses. I just don’t see how anyone can support an independence vote in one case but not the other.
There are, of course, significant differences. Scotland was forced into a shotgun marriage against the will of the people, becoming a decidedly lesser partner within a full political union. The UK freely entered an organisation of equal sovereign nation states (albeit one with the intention of growing towards political union), with the support of the people expressed in a referendum. Scotland is a part of a political union with severe limits on self-government. The UK was a sovereign nation, independent within an organisation of sovereign independent nations, not subject to the laws of a distant government over which we had little influence. As was mentioned earlier, the UK was free to hold a referendum on EU membership (indeed could have held several referendums over the years regarding each of the major revisions to the EU treaties, but didn't) even if the public vote that was held falls a long way short of the standard of a referendum set by convention and precedent. Scotland will have to beg to hold an independence referendum, and may find ourselves having to hold a referendum in 2022/23 with the full approval of the Scottish Parliament but not permitted by the Westminster government.
It's possible even a loyal British Scot feels more alienated than we realise by Westminster than, say, the average loyal Unionist in Northern Ireland.
Quite possibly. And that being the case, they’re within their rights to seek to cut their political ties to Westminster and go it alone. Or to form whichever alternative arrangements with other countries they may choose.
I just don’t get how people can think everything in that argument is perfectly right and proper, but act as if it’s a ridiculous pile of offal when you replace Scotland with the UK and Westminster with Brussels.
Scotland won't be going it alone. They were promised during the last ref that the only way they could guarantee remaining in the EU was voting to remain in the UK. Now they've been given the nod that they only way they can guarantee remaining in the EU is by voting to leave the UK.
It's possible even a loyal British Scot feels more alienated than we realise by Westminster than, say, the average loyal Unionist in Northern Ireland.
I just don’t get how people can think everything in that argument is perfectly right and proper, but act as if it’s a ridiculous pile of offal when you replace Scotland with the UK and Westminster with Brussels.
Because the relationships are completely different! Not least in that the UK can leave the EU without seeking the EU's permission, something not available to Scotland with respect to the UK. The UK had way more power and influence in the EU than Scotland ever had in the UK.
"Going it alone" is to go nowhere. To get anywhere in the world means working with others. It's as true of individuals as nations, no man is an island, nor is any country (even those which are). If the intention is to make Britain Great Again, to make us more prosperous, to address the social ills we suffer, to address the global challenges of climate and pandemic, to be influential in the world then the way to do that, the only way to do that, is to join with other nations ... other nations in Europe being the obvious first step.
I just don’t get how people can think everything in that argument is perfectly right and proper, but act as if it’s a ridiculous pile of offal when you replace Scotland with the UK and Westminster with Brussels.
Because of the level of thought put into one vs the other -- as Alan is constantly reminding us.
I just don’t get how people can think everything in that argument is perfectly right and proper, but act as if it’s a ridiculous pile of offal when you replace Scotland with the UK and Westminster with Brussels.
You're conflating two things. Everybody agrees that the UK is capable of leaving the EU. This isn't under dispute. What is disputed is:
1. Whether the referendum (which voted leave by a narrow 52-48 margin) contained a well-formed and well-defined question, so that you can have confidence in its answer.
2. Whether leaving the EU is a good idea for the UK
3. Whether anything that the leave campaign said during the referendum is true.
With respect to a possible future Scottish referendum:
1. It is clear that the intent will be for Scotland to seek independence from the UK and subsequent admission to the EU. So there's no question of undefined goals.
2. Whether it would be better for Scotland to leave the UK and join the EU is open for debate. It is true that Scotland's current major trading partner is England, which makes it a less than straightforward decision for Scots who generally favour the EU.
Scotland won't be going it alone. They were promised during the last ref that the only way they could guarantee remaining in the EU was voting to remain in the UK. Now they've been given the nod that they only way they can guarantee remaining in the EU is by voting to leave the UK.
What of this don't you understand?
The BIB. They have left the EU along with the rest of the UK
"Going it alone" is to go nowhere. To get anywhere in the world means working with others. It's as true of individuals as nations, no man is an island, nor is any country (even those which are). If the intention is to make Britain Great Again, to make us more prosperous, to address the social ills we suffer, to address the global challenges of climate and pandemic, to be influential in the world then the way to do that, the only way to do that, is to join with other nations ... other nations in Europe being the obvious first step.
We are in the Commonwealth of Nations. 54 countries with a population of nearly 2.5 billion people. Our Queen is the head and our PM is the secretary
"Going it alone" is to go nowhere. To get anywhere in the world means working with others. It's as true of individuals as nations, no man is an island, nor is any country (even those which are). If the intention is to make Britain Great Again, to make us more prosperous, to address the social ills we suffer, to address the global challenges of climate and pandemic, to be influential in the world then the way to do that, the only way to do that, is to join with other nations ... other nations in Europe being the obvious first step.
We are in the Commonwealth of Nations. 54 countries with a population of nearly 2.5 billion people. Our Queen is the head and our PM is the secretary
But, the Commonwealth is a very different sort of organisation. For trade, it doesn't have the localisation of being the nearest and most important trade partners (that's true of many Commonwealth nations - how many would have the UK as being their biggest trade partner? There may be some who trade a lot between each other, Australia and NZ for example, but most of their trade is elsewhere; I'd expect China and Japan to be at the top of the trade list).
Geography also impacts direct cooperation and cultural experiences. Programmes for science, for examples, benefit from proximity, the ability of collaborators to visit each other without travelling half way around the world The same is true of the whole freedom of movement, which is a massive benefit to EU nationals and businesses giving people the chance to live and work where they want and get home when they want, and for businesses to employ the people the need from a larger pool. Though, I'd welcome such schemes within the Commonwealth, freedom for people from anywhere in the Commonwealth to live and work where there's work for them to do, no restrictions on migration, more opportunities for less advantaged people to gain experience and learn in areas of more wealth.
The Commonwealth also represents a vast wealth range, some of the worlds richest nations and some of the poorest, any attempt to work closer together will almost certainly be at the behest of the richest with the poorest taking second place - it's very difficult for nations with such disparity in wealth to work as equals.
Economically, I think it’s a horrible idea. That’s why in 2016 I put my personal self-interest ahead of my principles and voted for remain.
But that’s not to say those principles don’t exist. And there are those who would say it’s better to be independent and poor than a rich vassal. When it comes to concepts such as national pride and self determination then economics is not the only thing that matters.
"Going it alone" is to go nowhere. To get anywhere in the world means working with others. It's as true of individuals as nations, no man is an island, nor is any country (even those which are). If the intention is to make Britain Great Again, to make us more prosperous, to address the social ills we suffer, to address the global challenges of climate and pandemic, to be influential in the world then the way to do that, the only way to do that, is to join with other nations ... other nations in Europe being the obvious first step.
We are in the Commonwealth of Nations. 54 countries with a population of nearly 2.5 billion people. Our Queen is the head and our PM is the secretary
But, the Commonwealth is a very different sort of organisation. For trade, it doesn't have the localisation of being the nearest and most important trade partners (that's true of many Commonwealth nations - how many would have the UK as being their biggest trade partner? There may be some who trade a lot between each other, Australia and NZ for example, but most of their trade is elsewhere; I'd expect China and Japan to be at the top of the trade list).
Geography also impacts direct cooperation and cultural experiences. Programmes for science, for examples, benefit from proximity, the ability of collaborators to visit each other without travelling half way around the world The same is true of the whole freedom of movement, which is a massive benefit to EU nationals and businesses giving people the chance to live and work where they want and get home when they want, and for businesses to employ the people the need from a larger pool. Though, I'd welcome such schemes within the Commonwealth, freedom for people from anywhere in the Commonwealth to live and work where there's work for them to do, no restrictions on migration, more opportunities for less advantaged people to gain experience and learn in areas of more wealth.
The Commonwealth also represents a vast wealth range, some of the worlds richest nations and some of the poorest, any attempt to work closer together will almost certainly be at the behest of the richest with the poorest taking second place - it's very difficult for nations with such disparity in wealth to work as equals.
I always thought we would remain in a custom union with the EU. Your post I quoted wasn't all about trade
Yes, the Leave campaign promised we'd leave the EU and remain in the Single Market and Customs Un ion ... until they got their narrow majority in a poorly defined and run public vote. Then all of a sudden it was no Single Market, no Customs Union ... no Deal.
And, my posts have been all about more than trade. Five years of posts where trade has been one part of the picture. Occasionally I might make a short post just about trade, but I've never been of the view that the EU is just a trading bloc nor that trade is the only, or even the most important, aspect of the discussion. My last post about the Commonwealth is also not all about trade, even if the first paragraph is.
Yes, the Leave campaign promised we'd leave the EU and remain in the Single Market and Customs Un ion ... until they got their narrow majority in a poorly defined and run public vote. Then all of a sudden it was no Single Market, no Customs Union ... no Deal.
And, my posts have been all about more than trade. Five years of posts where trade has been one part of the picture. Occasionally I might make a short post just about trade, but I've never been of the view that the EU is just a trading bloc nor that trade is the only, or even the most important, aspect of the discussion. My last post about the Commonwealth is also not all about trade, even if the first paragraph is.
When I voted to remain in the Common Market in 1975 it was all about trade. No mention at all about political unity. No chance to vote again for 41 years and that's why the majority voted to leave when they had the chance to reject the political union.
. England will then have lost another part of its first empire, reminds me of the knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, no legs, no arms, but still posturing.
Just what was England's second empire, please?
The first being other nations on the British Isles,
The second being the America’s. when territories that became USA was lost lost in 1770s focus moved to south and eastAsia, Middle East and Africa, much of which then became part of third empire.
Is not what you refer to as the third empire really the UK's? That's basically what I was getting at.
. England will then have lost another part of its first empire, reminds me of the knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, no legs, no arms, but still posturing.
Just what was England's second empire, please?
The first being other nations on the British Isles,
The second being the America’s. when territories that became USA was lost lost in 1770s focus moved to south and eastAsia, Middle East and Africa, much of which then became part of third empire.
Is not what you refer to as the third empire really the UK's? That's basically what I was getting at.
For sure, by time of second empire, to some extent, and to third empire completely, there was union of nations in UK.
It is also of course true, that many people in other nations of UK were active participants in developing second and third empires.
However England, was the driver from the beginning. An assumption that the other nations were part of “ the family”, but nevertheless lesser members, there to assist the project.
First empire development produced a certain type of English mindset, that other UK nations should just knuckle under and get on with it.
Can see the results of this particularly in Irish history, but also in others. English attitudes to devolved parliaments, independence movements within UK, and divisions between nations over Brexit are examples of this.
Suffolk Robb - I wonder what residents of the non-England part of the UK would say about your post. It is very Anglo-centric and I don't think it properly recognises the contribution made particularly by the Irish and Scots.
Just a statement of what we already know - Scotland, Wales and N Ireland are second class members of the UK (many parts of northern England, or anywhere outwith the London commuter belt, may also feel the same).
Suffolk Robb - I wonder what residents of the non-England part of the UK would say about your post. It is very Anglo-centric and I don't think it properly recognises the contribution made particularly by the Irish and Scots.
I think that we are on different wavelengths here.
It depends on whether you think empire building was a worthwhile project to contribute to. I don’t.
The fact that the empire, both internally within the UK, and externally had an Anglocentric focus was my point.
I was attempting to address and challenge whatI perceive as an Anglo centric focus that still permeates UK political, and cultural life today.
I realise that there are many points of view. I would be very happy to hear views from shipmates from other parts of the UK
The UK was/is sovereign and independent and always had the option of saying "no" to anything that the EU proposed. The UK government just rarely did (because in the vast majority of cases the EU proposals were either initiated by the UK in the first place, obviously sensible* or not relevant to the UK). The EU proposed a nice shade of burgundy for passports, the UK government could have said "no, we'll stick with blue", etc, etc.
* this was back in the day before we had a government committed to going against anything obviously sensible, and choosing the daftest possible alternative.
Wasn't there a scare a few years ago, when it looked as though *Brussels* (that evil ogre living on the other side of the fog in the Channel) was going to force us true-blue Englishmen to eat only straight bananas, and square tomatoes?
This dastardly invasion of our sovereign rights was obviously defeated, as I have never seen, or eaten, a straight banana or a square tomato...
Wasn't there a scare a few years ago, when it looked as though *Brussels* (that evil ogre living on the other side of the fog in the Channel) was going to force us true-blue Englishmen to eat only straight bananas, and square tomatoes?
Mostly generated by the current incumbent of No. 10:
Wasn't there a scare a few years ago, when it looked as though *Brussels* was going to force us true-blue Englishmen to eat only straight bananas, and square tomatoes?
I believe it was a world exclusive obtained by the fearless investigative reporter Boris Johnson, whose dedication to the truth then as now knows no peers.
"Going it alone" is to go nowhere. To get anywhere in the world means working with others. It's as true of individuals as nations, no man is an island, nor is any country (even those which are). If the intention is to make Britain Great Again, to make us more prosperous, to address the social ills we suffer, to address the global challenges of climate and pandemic, to be influential in the world then the way to do that, the only way to do that, is to join with other nations ... other nations in Europe being the obvious first step.
We are in the Commonwealth of Nations. 54 countries with a population of nearly 2.5 billion people. Our Queen is the head and our PM is the secretary
News just out is that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia is about to relocate from London to mainland Europe, probably Frankfurt. Maybe they won’t all rush back to mummy’s apron strings.
Comments
It's emotionally incontinent toddlers like you that have wrecked this country for the rest of us. Of course being in a union involves collective decison making and the renunciation of the right to flounce.
As you were not told to grow the fuck up when you shouldhave been your utter febrile pathetic stupidly is about to economically cripple us all.
Fuck the unholy fuck off.
The first being other nations on the British Isles,
The second being the America’s. when territories that became USA was lost lost in 1770s focus moved to south and eastAsia, Middle East and Africa, much of which then became part of third empire.
World-beating stuff, no?
I think that it is useful to think of what the consequences of actions mean and feel like for parties involved rather than strictly legal nomenclature.
In 1707 Scotland formed a Union, signed by parties who had an interest in it taking place. Therefore not in legal terms a takeover, or colony status. But since Scotland then lost its parliament, not to be reinstated until late 20th century. Until then all social structures except for legal system and education were integrated with England.
You then had highland clearances undertaken by English landlords or aristocratic low lander Scots in effect part of and agents for the English establishment.
If you uselocation of power, and actual ability of other parties to challenge that power a criteria to define empire structures, then clearly that was the relationship between England And Scotland
Quite right, nevertheless I am sure looking forward to Brexiters getting their knickers in a twist over it.
Eh?
I name no names, but let the reader understand.
(It's certainly not you @Suffolk Rob , I hasten to add!)
Yes. Which is why so many of us don’t want to be in one. Or at least not that one.
I mean, look at Scotland. They freely chose to join a union with England, which they called the United Kingdom. And now a lot of them want to leave it because the collective decision making of the union isn’t to their liking. Do you consider them emotionally incontinent toddlers as well?
(For the record, I’m fully in favour of Scottish independence should that be what the majority of the population of Scotland chooses. I just don’t see how anyone can support an independence vote in one case but not the other.
So who would you prefer? The USA? China? Russia? Because we don't "rule the waves" any more. Our best hope of continuing to punch above our weight in international affairs is to align ourselves with a superpower. Until Brexit we were aligned with one superpower (the US) and were actually one of the most important and influential members of a second (the EU). In the last four years, all of that, forty-plus years of political capital, has been pissed away - for what? So the Bullingdon boys can continue to dodge taxes and the Mad Mophead can pretend to be Churchill? Forgive me for being entirely underwhelmed. I am still reeling from the shock of discovering that it is possible for people to starve in one of the richest countries in the world.
You know this isn't actually true, right?
'Freely'? Oh dear. I don't think it's as simple as that. I'm not even an amateur Scottish historian but I'm guessing that the centuries of events leading up to the UK alliance, are horribly mangled, complicated and usually nothing to do with 'free' in terms of the democratic will of the people.
However, I don't think independence for Scotland would be simple either. No more than leaving the EU is proving to be despite the Leave campaigners' promises. It is worth pointing out, however, that just because a nation might not wish to be in co-dependent relationship with its border neighbour, it might not still want to be in closer economic/cultural relationship with a federation of other countries with whom it feels a greater alliance. It may look like the same principle of independence at work in both cases. But the UK is no EU - take that positively or negatively, as you will. Not parallel cases at all, in other words. It's possible even a loyal British Scot feels more alienated than we realise by Westminster than, say, the average loyal Unionist in Northern Ireland. You'll certainly see more Union flags in Ulster than in Scotland, in my experience!
Personally, I haven't been convinced yet that Scotland would be better outside of the UK. Or that it would be accepted for EU membership should it leave the UK. And again - personally - I think this is entirely the wrong time to be preaching IndyRef while people are still dying from this virus and the economy is tanking. But I'm not Scottish and it's just my observation from the 'outside'.
Quite possibly. And that being the case, they’re within their rights to seek to cut their political ties to Westminster and go it alone. Or to form whichever alternative arrangements with other countries they may choose.
I just don’t get how people can think everything in that argument is perfectly right and proper, but act as if it’s a ridiculous pile of offal when you replace Scotland with the UK and Westminster with Brussels.
What of this don't you understand?
Because the relationships are completely different! Not least in that the UK can leave the EU without seeking the EU's permission, something not available to Scotland with respect to the UK. The UK had way more power and influence in the EU than Scotland ever had in the UK.
Because of the level of thought put into one vs the other -- as Alan is constantly reminding us.
You're conflating two things. Everybody agrees that the UK is capable of leaving the EU. This isn't under dispute. What is disputed is:
1. Whether the referendum (which voted leave by a narrow 52-48 margin) contained a well-formed and well-defined question, so that you can have confidence in its answer.
2. Whether leaving the EU is a good idea for the UK
3. Whether anything that the leave campaign said during the referendum is true.
With respect to a possible future Scottish referendum:
1. It is clear that the intent will be for Scotland to seek independence from the UK and subsequent admission to the EU. So there's no question of undefined goals.
2. Whether it would be better for Scotland to leave the UK and join the EU is open for debate. It is true that Scotland's current major trading partner is England, which makes it a less than straightforward decision for Scots who generally favour the EU.
We are in the Commonwealth of Nations. 54 countries with a population of nearly 2.5 billion people. Our Queen is the head and our PM is the secretary
You are correct. Mr Johnson is the Chair.
Geography also impacts direct cooperation and cultural experiences. Programmes for science, for examples, benefit from proximity, the ability of collaborators to visit each other without travelling half way around the world The same is true of the whole freedom of movement, which is a massive benefit to EU nationals and businesses giving people the chance to live and work where they want and get home when they want, and for businesses to employ the people the need from a larger pool. Though, I'd welcome such schemes within the Commonwealth, freedom for people from anywhere in the Commonwealth to live and work where there's work for them to do, no restrictions on migration, more opportunities for less advantaged people to gain experience and learn in areas of more wealth.
The Commonwealth also represents a vast wealth range, some of the worlds richest nations and some of the poorest, any attempt to work closer together will almost certainly be at the behest of the richest with the poorest taking second place - it's very difficult for nations with such disparity in wealth to work as equals.
“Or to form whichever alternative arrangements with other countries they may choose.”
The principle is the same though.
Economically, I think it’s a horrible idea. That’s why in 2016 I put my personal self-interest ahead of my principles and voted for remain.
But that’s not to say those principles don’t exist. And there are those who would say it’s better to be independent and poor than a rich vassal. When it comes to concepts such as national pride and self determination then economics is not the only thing that matters.
And, my posts have been all about more than trade. Five years of posts where trade has been one part of the picture. Occasionally I might make a short post just about trade, but I've never been of the view that the EU is just a trading bloc nor that trade is the only, or even the most important, aspect of the discussion. My last post about the Commonwealth is also not all about trade, even if the first paragraph is.
When I voted to remain in the Common Market in 1975 it was all about trade. No mention at all about political unity. No chance to vote again for 41 years and that's why the majority voted to leave when they had the chance to reject the political union.
Is not what you refer to as the third empire really the UK's? That's basically what I was getting at.
For sure, by time of second empire, to some extent, and to third empire completely, there was union of nations in UK.
It is also of course true, that many people in other nations of UK were active participants in developing second and third empires.
However England, was the driver from the beginning. An assumption that the other nations were part of “ the family”, but nevertheless lesser members, there to assist the project.
First empire development produced a certain type of English mindset, that other UK nations should just knuckle under and get on with it.
Can see the results of this particularly in Irish history, but also in others. English attitudes to devolved parliaments, independence movements within UK, and divisions between nations over Brexit are examples of this.
What principle is that?
I think that we are on different wavelengths here.
It depends on whether you think empire building was a worthwhile project to contribute to. I don’t.
The fact that the empire, both internally within the UK, and externally had an Anglocentric focus was my point.
I was attempting to address and challenge whatI perceive as an Anglo centric focus that still permeates UK political, and cultural life today.
I realise that there are many points of view. I would be very happy to hear views from shipmates from other parts of the UK
The effects of this are being increasingly seen in the way the devolved nations are working...
Perhaps those on this thread who are pro-Brexit and anti-EU could enlighten us?
* this was back in the day before we had a government committed to going against anything obviously sensible, and choosing the daftest possible alternative.
This dastardly invasion of our sovereign rights was obviously defeated, as I have never seen, or eaten, a straight banana or a square tomato...
Mostly generated by the current incumbent of No. 10:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/boris-johnson-brussels-bashing-stories-shaped-politics
News just out is that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia is about to relocate from London to mainland Europe, probably Frankfurt. Maybe they won’t all rush back to mummy’s apron strings.
Odd, though, seeing as we're about to enter into some sort of world-beating trade agreement with Australia...or was that another of the Unicorns?
Still, there's also news that *England* is going to be a good boy, and not break international law. Well, this time, anyway.