I have just returned from a punishing Times assignment in Mauritius. I can report that it is a pleasant place, with good food, lovely beaches, and some truly excellent hotels (e.g. One and Only Saint Geran).
And there was absolutely no mention of Brexit.
Sounds idyllic.
A hotel full of braying rich spiv Brits does not sound idyllic to me , sounds like hell.
I rather took to Mauritius. It is a fascinatingly successful example of multiculturalism, with delightful people speaking French Creole. It is wealthy enough to wander round safely, and there always seemed to be large genial family parties of locals on the beach. Food is good, both street food and high end, and enough to see to break up the monotony of lying in the sun.
It does get a fair number of tourists, but is a big Island so not too overwhelmed. Tourism is big enough to have infrastructure, but there is enough other work to keep it from merely being a playground. Those who stay in all inclusive really miss out, but that is usually the case in my opinion.
I have just returned from a punishing Times assignment in Mauritius. I can report that it is a pleasant place, with good food, lovely beaches, and some truly excellent hotels (e.g. One and Only Saint Geran).
And there was absolutely no mention of Brexit.
Sounds idyllic.
A hotel full of braying rich spiv Brits does not sound idyllic to me , sounds like hell.
I rather took to Mauritius. It is a fascinatingly successful example of multiculturalism, with delightful people speaking French Creole. It is wealthy enough to wander round safely, and there always seemed to be large genial family parties of locals on the beach. Food is good, both street food and high end, and enough to see to break up the monotony of lying in the sun.
It does get a fair number of tourists, but is a big Island so not too overwhelmed. Tourism is big enough to have infrastructure, but there is enough other work to keep it from merely being a playground. Those who stay in all inclusive really miss out, but that is usually the case in my opinion.
I imagine it is lovely , I was just thinking of sharing a hotel full of over privileged over rich British spivs and con artists. Not my idea of an idyllic holiday having to listen to their braying and boasting.
I have just returned from a punishing Times assignment in Mauritius. I can report that it is a pleasant place, with good food, lovely beaches, and some truly excellent hotels (e.g. One and Only Saint Geran).
And there was absolutely no mention of Brexit.
Sounds idyllic.
A hotel full of braying rich spiv Brits does not sound idyllic to me , sounds like hell.
I rather took to Mauritius. It is a fascinatingly successful example of multiculturalism, with delightful people speaking French Creole. It is wealthy enough to wander round safely, and there always seemed to be large genial family parties of locals on the beach. Food is good, both street food and high end, and enough to see to break up the monotony of lying in the sun.
It does get a fair number of tourists, but is a big Island so not too overwhelmed. Tourism is big enough to have infrastructure, but there is enough other work to keep it from merely being a playground. Those who stay in all inclusive really miss out, but that is usually the case in my opinion.
I imagine it is lovely , I was just thinking of sharing a hotel full of over privileged over rich British spivs and con artists. Not my idea of an idyllic holiday having to listen to their braying and boasting.
But no boring droning about Brexit, Malcolm? Doesn't that appeal even a little?
Isn't his playbook to be needlessly provocative? I don't think that's the suggestion here.
Sending Tories to universities? How much more provocative to you want to get?
The King to Oxford sent a troop of horse; For Tories own no argument but force; With equal skill, to Cambridge books he sent; For Whigs admit no force but argument
My £30 on Spurs and playing Harry Kane as triple captain in the fantasy football nearly did the trick
Saw that.... mixed emotions on harrys 2 pens??? My £50 on liverpool at 23-20 did do the trick! Happy with a point all day for me. Now for the big one... newport
The problem with the Remoaner mentality typified by this article is that it does not see that it might well be in the public interest to implement what the public actually wanted in the referendum, rather than the Brexit in Name Only that Remoaners want to impose.
It is not in the public interest for democracy to be ignored and for over half the population to feel that democracy does not work. Remoaners might be angry but they lost the referendum and being bad losers and insulting the majority who want Brexit is not in the public interest.
Indeed Remoaners tend to arrogantly associate what is in the public interest with their own views, and to define the "public" as if it is something totally different from the seventeen and a half million people who voted for Brexit.
Millions of people voted for and support Brexit because they believe that it is not in the public interest for the UK to be under the control of a foreign power, the EU Empire, they believe that it is in the public interest for the UK to be independent in the same way as many Scots want Scotland to be independent, and some Catalans want Catalonia to be independent. It is not in the public interest for the UK not to control its own borders, not to be able to control the level of immigration, not to be able to control its own laws.
I might wish it were otherwise, but the truth is that we British pro-Europeans are beginning to sound more and more like Betamax enthusiasts arguing the superior merits of their systems against the unstoppable VHS tide.
Without even losing the argument we have contrived to lose not just the battle, but the entire war. The British people, for all our efforts, have proved de Gaulle right, when he exercised his veto against our membership in 1963 and doubted whether our evolution “and the evolution of the universe might bring the English little by little to the Continent”.
The Universe has not so evolved. Judging by its newspapers and its politicians, the people of Britain don’t get Europe, don’t like Europe and don’t want Europe. I have done my best, but nothing will persuade older Britons that the EU is not just some updated, endless episode of ’Allo ’Allo! or younger Britons to take any interest in it. It’s over. Time to come out of the jungle with my hands up, lay down my rusty rifle and think of something else.
The problem with the Remoaner mentality typified by this article is that it does not see that it might well be in the public interest to implement what the public actually wanted in the referendum, rather than the Brexit in Name Only that Remoaners want to impose.
It is not in the public interest for democracy to be ignored and for over half the population to feel that democracy does not work. Remoaners might be angry but they lost the referendum and being bad losers and insulting the majority who want Brexit is not in the public interest.
Indeed Remoaners tend to arrogantly associate what is in the public interest with their own views, and to define the "public" as if it is something totally different from the seventeen and a half million people who voted for Brexit.
Millions of people voted for and support Brexit because they believe that it is not in the public interest for the UK to be under the control of a foreign power, the EU Empire, they believe that it is in the public interest for the UK to be independent in the same way as many Scots want Scotland to be independent, and some Catalans want Catalonia to be independent. It is not in the public interest for the UK not to control its own borders, not to be able to control the level of immigration, not to be able to control its own laws.
It’s a shame you have read a different article from the one written. My criticism of the Conservatives on this occasion is not the form of Brexit that they are selecting but the route that they are following to get there. Illogical dogma, conspiracy theories and divination of policy through rejection of all forms of policy assessment do not bode well. Those not already convinced by the cult are going to look on and deem them cuckoo.
I might wish it were otherwise, but the truth is that we British pro-Europeans are beginning to sound more and more like Betamax enthusiasts arguing the superior merits of their systems against the unstoppable VHS tide.
Without even losing the argument we have contrived to lose not just the battle, but the entire war. The British people, for all our efforts, have proved de Gaulle right, when he exercised his veto against our membership in 1963 and doubted whether our evolution “and the evolution of the universe might bring the English little by little to the Continent”.
The Universe has not so evolved. Judging by its newspapers and its politicians, the people of Britain don’t get Europe, don’t like Europe and don’t want Europe. I have done my best, but nothing will persuade older Britons that the EU is not just some updated, endless episode of ’Allo ’Allo! or younger Britons to take any interest in it. It’s over. Time to come out of the jungle with my hands up, lay down my rusty rifle and think of something else.
On the basis of that logic any people that want independence for their country are guilty of the same thing. Catalans who want independence from Spain, Scots who want independence from the UK, indeed the Irish and Indians who wanted independence from the British Empire are all really "Betamax enthusiasts".
But it is of course nonsense. Sour grapes, bad losing, a total inability to understand on the part of the bitter.
I have just returned from a punishing Times assignment in Mauritius. I can report that it is a pleasant place, with good food, lovely beaches, and some truly excellent hotels (e.g. One and Only Saint Geran).
And there was absolutely no mention of Brexit.
Sounds idyllic.
A hotel full of braying rich spiv Brits does not sound idyllic to me , sounds like hell.
I rather took to Mauritius. It is a fascinatingly successful example of multiculturalism, with delightful people speaking French Creole. It is wealthy enough to wander round safely, and there always seemed to be large genial family parties of locals on the beach. Food is good, both street food and high end, and enough to see to break up the monotony of lying in the sun.
It does get a fair number of tourists, but is a big Island so not too overwhelmed. Tourism is big enough to have infrastructure, but there is enough other work to keep it from merely being a playground. Those who stay in all inclusive really miss out, but that is usually the case in my opinion.
I enjoyed Mauritius too (although it is the only place I have had my credit card cloned). The centre of the island provides some great walking (get a guide to see the big roost of the fruit bats and if you are lucky, some off the very rare birds such as the pink pigeon).
The only issue with multiculturalism I saw was a considerable dislike of the very wealthy Indian families who visit in big numbers.
I might wish it were otherwise, but the truth is that we British pro-Europeans are beginning to sound more and more like Betamax enthusiasts arguing the superior merits of their systems against the unstoppable VHS tide.
Without even losing the argument we have contrived to lose not just the battle, but the entire war. The British people, for all our efforts, have proved de Gaulle right, when he exercised his veto against our membership in 1963 and doubted whether our evolution “and the evolution of the universe might bring the English little by little to the Continent”.
The Universe has not so evolved. Judging by its newspapers and its politicians, the people of Britain don’t get Europe, don’t like Europe and don’t want Europe. I have done my best, but nothing will persuade older Britons that the EU is not just some updated, endless episode of ’Allo ’Allo! or younger Britons to take any interest in it. It’s over. Time to come out of the jungle with my hands up, lay down my rusty rifle and think of something else.
On the basis of that logic any people that want independence for their country are guilty of the same thing. Catalans who want independence from Spain, Scots who want independence from the UK, indeed the Irish and Indians who wanted independence from the British Empire are all really "Betamax enthusiasts".
But it is of course nonsense. Sour grapes, bad losing, a total inability to understand on the part of the bitter.
I think you have it back to front? It's the Remainers who are Betamax in his metaphor. I don't see the sour grapes or bad losing, either; he is just saying that one side had to lose, and sadly for him, it was his.
On the basis of that logic any people that want independence for their country are guilty of the same thing. Catalans who want independence from Spain, Scots who want independence from the UK, indeed the Irish and Indians who wanted independence from the British Empire are all really "Betamax enthusiasts".
But it is of course nonsense. Sour grapes, bad losing, a total inability to understand on the part of the bitter.
It was written 6 years ago so he was remarkably prescient in his remoanery, sour grapey, bad losing. He also seems to have been wrong about 'persuading younger Britons to take any interest in it'.
The biggest problem of the Brexit debate is that there appears to be no objective truth. Every article, analysis, post, tweet is utterly biased in one direction or the other. I would no more trust Amber Rudd or Vince Cable than I would Boris Johnson or JRM. All media outlets are equally biased.
One would hope that the civil service could be relied upon to provide some much needed objectivity but after the nonsense that they came out with seemingly on behalf the remain campaign I can well see why many do not trust them either.
I voted to remain and have no real idea what will happen post Brexit but my inclination is to believe that we'll eventually make the best of it whatever we decide to do. My suspicion is that the likes of Boris are reconciled to a fairly soft Brexit (JRM less so but who cares?) but the recent leaks re remaining in the customs union have in their eyes crossed a red line, hence the pressure brought to bear by the media.
If this is the case, This is fair enough if you believe (as I do) that those who voted leave will accept a soft Brexit but not a BINO, which staying in the customs union surely is. I did not vote for it, but I dread to think what will happen if we do not deliver a meaningful Brexit.
The biggest problem of the Brexit debate is that there appears to be no objective truth. Every article, analysis, post, tweet is utterly biased in one direction or the other. I would no more trust Amber Rudd or Vince Cable than I would Boris Johnson or JRM. All media outlets are equally biased.
One would hope that the civil service could be relied upon to provide some much needed objectivity but after the nonsense that they came out with seemingly on behalf the remain campaign I can well see why many do not trust them either.
I voted to remain and have no real idea what will happen post Brexit but my inclination is to believe that we'll eventually make the best of it whatever we decide to do. My suspicion is that the likes of Boris are reconciled to a fairly soft Brexit (JRM less so but who cares?) but the recent leaks re remaining in the customs union have in their eyes crossed a red line, hence the pressure brought to bear by the media.
If this is the case, This is fair enough if you believe (as I do) that those who voted leave will accept a soft Brexit but not a BINO, which staying in the customs union surely is. I did not vote for it, but I dread to think what will happen if we do not deliver a meaningful Brexit.
The problem with the Remoaner mentality typified by this article is that it does not see that it might well be in the public interest to implement what the public actually wanted in the referendum, rather than the Brexit in Name Only that Remoaners want to impose.
It's reality imposing a Brexit in Name Only, not 'Remoaners'. There simply isn't majority support either in the country or in parliament for any of the real-world changes that would be required to implement a meaningful Brexit. The whole thing is just ridiculous posturing.
The problem with the Remoaner mentality typified by this article is that it does not see that it might well be in the public interest to implement what the public actually wanted in the referendum, rather than the Brexit in Name Only that Remoaners want to impose.
It's reality imposing a Brexit in Name Only, not 'Remoaners'. There simply isn't majority support either in the country or in parliament for any of the real-world changes that would be required to implement a meaningful Brexit. The whole thing is just ridiculous posturing.
In your view but for the sake of balance other views are available
The problem with the Remoaner mentality typified by this article is that it does not see that it might well be in the public interest to implement what the public actually wanted in the referendum, rather than the Brexit in Name Only that Remoaners want to impose.
It's reality imposing a Brexit in Name Only, not 'Remoaners'. There simply isn't majority support either in the country or in parliament for any of the real-world changes that would be required to implement a meaningful Brexit. The whole thing is just ridiculous posturing.
The term meaningful Brexit is not very helpful. It means whatever the loon-waving Brexiter fringe faction wants it to mean.
There is probably an uneasy majority in the country, and in parliament for EEA. It doesn’t solve FOM but Europeans have stopped coming anyway (the last quarter had net European migration at statistically insignificant).
We need someone with the balls to secure that, at least for transition, and kick final status down the road. Brexiters can then be free to argue for the North Korea option, and hardcore Remainers to rejoin.
The problem with the Remoaner mentality typified by this article is that it does not see that it might well be in the public interest to implement what the public actually wanted in the referendum, rather than the Brexit in Name Only that Remoaners want to impose.
It's reality imposing a Brexit in Name Only, not 'Remoaners'. There simply isn't majority support either in the country or in parliament for any of the real-world changes that would be required to implement a meaningful Brexit. The whole thing is just ridiculous posturing.
The term meaningful Brexit is not very helpful. It means whatever the loon-waving Brexiter fringe faction wants it to mean.
There is probably an uneasy majority in the country, and in parliament for EEA. It doesn’t solve FOM but Europeans have stopped coming anyway (the last quarter had net European migration at statistically insignificant).
We need someone with the balls to secure that, at least for transition, and kick final status down the road. Brexiters can then be free to argue for the North Korea option, and hardcore Remainers to rejoin.
The rest of us can get on with our lives.
There could be a majority for the EEA in theory but not in practice. Even if we decided to go for it, it wouldn't be straightforward and would still present the cliff edge challenge of when and how to leave the customs union and what to do with Northern Ireland.
I think Theresa is safe until the next general election and beyond. Yes, we're getting lots of briefings and disloyalty from Boris and his acolytes, but this is only about tarnishing brand Theresa and protecting brand Boris, so when the inevitable soft-Brexit fudge comes Boris can pretend he had no hand in it. I'll wager the 'Dream Team' stuff is part of this - put about now to make Boris look statesmanlike and consensual when he doesn't wholly fill his cabinet with zealots.
The biggest problem of the Brexit debate is that there appears to be no objective truth. Every article, analysis, post, tweet is utterly biased in one direction or the other. I would no more trust Amber Rudd or Vince Cable than I would Boris Johnson or JRM. All media outlets are equally biased.
One would hope that the civil service could be relied upon to provide some much needed objectivity but after the nonsense that they came out with seemingly on behalf the remain campaign I can well see why many do not trust them either.
I voted to remain and have no real idea what will happen post Brexit but my inclination is to believe that we'll eventually make the best of it whatever we decide to do. My suspicion is that the likes of Boris are reconciled to a fairly soft Brexit (JRM less so but who cares?) but the recent leaks re remaining in the customs union have in their eyes crossed a red line, hence the pressure brought to bear by the media.
If this is the case, This is fair enough if you believe (as I do) that those who voted leave will accept a soft Brexit but not a BINO, which staying in the customs union surely is. I did not vote for it, but I dread to think what will happen if we do not deliver a meaningful Brexit.
I think that when you have competing ideas of what is good, then coming to an objective of the truth is almost impossible. Things that I think of as good are bad to many Remainers, and vice versa.
The problem with the Remoaner mentality typified by this article is that it does not see that it might well be in the public interest to implement what the public actually wanted in the referendum, rather than the Brexit in Name Only that Remoaners want to impose.
It's reality imposing a Brexit in Name Only, not 'Remoaners'. There simply isn't majority support either in the country or in parliament for any of the real-world changes that would be required to implement a meaningful Brexit. The whole thing is just ridiculous posturing.
The term meaningful Brexit is not very helpful. It means whatever the loon-waving Brexiter fringe faction wants it to mean.
There is probably an uneasy majority in the country, and in parliament for EEA. It doesn’t solve FOM but Europeans have stopped coming anyway (the last quarter had net European migration at statistically insignificant).
We need someone with the balls to secure that, at least for transition, and kick final status down the road. Brexiters can then be free to argue for the North Korea option, and hardcore Remainers to rejoin.
The rest of us can get on with our lives.
Looking at the FT’s chart on this, Q3 seemed to be the peak quarter for immigration in the past few years. It’ll be interesting to see how things have changed this year.
I might wish it were otherwise, but the truth is that we British pro-Europeans are beginning to sound more and more like Betamax enthusiasts arguing the superior merits of their systems against the unstoppable VHS tide.
Without even losing the argument we have contrived to lose not just the battle, but the entire war. The British people, for all our efforts, have proved de Gaulle right, when he exercised his veto against our membership in 1963 and doubted whether our evolution “and the evolution of the universe might bring the English little by little to the Continent”.
The Universe has not so evolved. Judging by its newspapers and its politicians, the people of Britain don’t get Europe, don’t like Europe and don’t want Europe. I have done my best, but nothing will persuade older Britons that the EU is not just some updated, endless episode of ’Allo ’Allo! or younger Britons to take any interest in it. It’s over. Time to come out of the jungle with my hands up, lay down my rusty rifle and think of something else.
The Betamax metaphor is an interesting one for Brexit, but I would say the key takeaway is that VHS won out regardless of any intrinsic superiority, because it made itself the standard. On that logic, the EU, which is the standard for 27 countries and somewhat so for a couple more, is VHS while the UK, if it wishes to be different, is Betamax. The EU is the only game in town in Europe. That's the important context to whatever we do with Brexit.
I might wish it were otherwise, but the truth is that we British pro-Europeans are beginning to sound more and more like Betamax enthusiasts arguing the superior merits of their systems against the unstoppable VHS tide.
Without even losing the argument we have contrived to lose not just the battle, but the entire war. The British people, for all our efforts, have proved de Gaulle right, when he exercised his veto against our membership in 1963 and doubted whether our evolution “and the evolution of the universe might bring the English little by little to the Continent”.
The Universe has not so evolved. Judging by its newspapers and its politicians, the people of Britain don’t get Europe, don’t like Europe and don’t want Europe. I have done my best, but nothing will persuade older Britons that the EU is not just some updated, endless episode of ’Allo ’Allo! or younger Britons to take any interest in it. It’s over. Time to come out of the jungle with my hands up, lay down my rusty rifle and think of something else.
The Betamax metaphor is an interesting one for Brexit, but I would say the key takeaway is that VHS won out regardless of any intrinsic superiority, because it made itself the standard. On that logic, the EU, which is the standard for 27 countries and somewhat so for a couple more, is VHS while the UK, if it wishes to be different, is Betamax. The EU is the only game in town in Europe. That's the important context to whatever we do with Brexit.
I might wish it were otherwise, but the truth is that we British pro-Europeans are beginning to sound more and more like Betamax enthusiasts arguing the superior merits of their systems against the unstoppable VHS tide.
Without even losing the argument we have contrived to lose not just the battle, but the entire war. The British people, for all our efforts, have proved de Gaulle right, when he exercised his veto against our membership in 1963 and doubted whether our evolution “and the evolution of the universe might bring the English little by little to the Continent”.
The Universe has not so evolved. Judging by its newspapers and its politicians, the people of Britain don’t get Europe, don’t like Europe and don’t want Europe. I have done my best, but nothing will persuade older Britons that the EU is not just some updated, endless episode of ’Allo ’Allo! or younger Britons to take any interest in it. It’s over. Time to come out of the jungle with my hands up, lay down my rusty rifle and think of something else.
The Betamax metaphor is an interesting one for Brexit, but I would say the key takeaway is that VHS won out regardless of any intrinsic superiority, because it made itself the standard. On that logic, the EU, which is the standard for 27 countries and somewhat so for a couple more, is VHS while the UK, if it wishes to be different, is Betamax. The EU is the only game in town in Europe. That's the important context to whatever we do with Brexit.
How’s VHS doing these days?
Try as I might, I can't imagine Brexit Britain becoming the Netflix of global governance.
I might wish it were otherwise, but the truth is that we British pro-Europeans are beginning to sound more and more like Betamax enthusiasts arguing the superior merits of their systems against the unstoppable VHS tide.
Without even losing the argument we have contrived to lose not just the battle, but the entire war. The British people, for all our efforts, have proved de Gaulle right, when he exercised his veto against our membership in 1963 and doubted whether our evolution “and the evolution of the universe might bring the English little by little to the Continent”.
The Universe has not so evolved. Judging by its newspapers and its politicians, the people of Britain don’t get Europe, don’t like Europe and don’t want Europe. I have done my best, but nothing will persuade older Britons that the EU is not just some updated, endless episode of ’Allo ’Allo! or younger Britons to take any interest in it. It’s over. Time to come out of the jungle with my hands up, lay down my rusty rifle and think of something else.
The Betamax metaphor is an interesting one for Brexit, but I would say the key takeaway is that VHS won out regardless of any intrinsic superiority, because it made itself the standard. On that logic, the EU, which is the standard for 27 countries and somewhat so for a couple more, is VHS while the UK, if it wishes to be different, is Betamax. The EU is the only game in town in Europe. That's the important context to whatever we do with Brexit.
How’s VHS doing these days?
Try as I might, I can't imagine Brexit Britain becoming the Netflix of global governance.
I think that when you have competing ideas of what is good, then coming to an objective of the truth is almost impossible. Things that I think of as good are bad to many Remainers, and vice versa.
To a large extent Brexit concerns issues of national identity, in a similar way to how the Scottish independence referendum (and every other independence referendum ever) has touched on issues like the economy and how cross-border issues will be dealt with, but people were still very much swayed by whether they saw themselves as having an over-arching British identity or whether their Scottish identity took precedence.
The route the EU has been heading down, from Maastricht onwards, is about far more than cutting down trade barriers and making people richer. In fact trade policy and common regulation is a great platform for building a new country - one only has to look at the historical development of the German state, or the amount of work that the "commerce clause" in the US constitution has put to. If the overwhelming majority of UK citizens felt that to be British is just part of their overarching European identity, then* not only would Remain have won, but the only euro-referendum we would have had would have concerned membership of the single currency. If the vast majority of UK citizens saw being British as actively antithetical to being European, then** Leave would presumably have won a stonking majority. (* - unless "love Europe but hate its institutions" were to be a major factor; ** - unless there was a widespread, possibly delusional, belief that Britain can single-handedly stall European integration so the EU would remain merely a convenient trading arrangement even though we disagree with its core ideals and aspirations.)
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, yet certainly the majority of Brits would be uncomfortable with continued membership of an EU which went down the route preferred by Schulz, Verhofstadt, Macron and pretty much any leading figures from the Commission. Given the momentum for closer integration, some sort of break or switch to associate membership has been, in the long run, on the cards since the 1990s. Whether these arrangements are "good" or "bad" in the long run includes a lot of hypothesising about counterfactuals, as well as questions about national identity and the extent to which Britain is a "good fit" for the European project, which are hard to answer in an evidence-based way. Economic forecasts can be part of the picture, but not all of it.
I might wish it were otherwise, but the truth is that we British pro-Europeans are beginning to sound more and more like Betamax enthusiasts arguing the superior merits of their systems against the unstoppable VHS tide.
Without even losing the argument we have contrived to lose not just the battle, but the entire war. The British people, for all our efforts, have proved de Gaulle right, when he exercised his veto against our membership in 1963 and doubted whether our evolution “and the evolution of the universe might bring the English little by little to the Continent”.
The Universe has not so evolved. Judging by its newspapers and its politicians, the people of Britain don’t get Europe, don’t like Europe and don’t want Europe. I have done my best, but nothing will persuade older Britons that the EU is not just some updated, endless episode of ’Allo ’Allo! or younger Britons to take any interest in it. It’s over. Time to come out of the jungle with my hands up, lay down my rusty rifle and think of something else.
The Betamax metaphor is an interesting one for Brexit, but I would say the key takeaway is that VHS won out regardless of any intrinsic superiority, because it made itself the standard. On that logic, the EU, which is the standard for 27 countries and somewhat so for a couple more, is VHS while the UK, if it wishes to be different, is Betamax. The EU is the only game in town in Europe. That's the important context to whatever we do with Brexit.
How’s VHS doing these days?
Try as I might, I can't imagine Brexit Britain becoming the Netflix of global governance.
Touché, Charles. But VHS is the VHS of metaphors while Netflix is merely Betamax.
I think that when you have competing ideas of what is good, then coming to an objective of the truth is almost impossible. Things that I think of as good are bad to many Remainers, and vice versa.
To a large extent Brexit concerns issues of national identity, in a similar way to how the Scottish independence referendum (and every other independence referendum ever) has touched on issues like the economy and how cross-border issues will be dealt with, but people were still very much swayed by whether they saw themselves as having an over-arching British identity or whether their Scottish identity took precedence.
The route the EU has been heading down, from Maastricht onwards, is about far more than cutting down trade barriers and making people richer. In fact trade policy and common regulation is a great platform for building a new country - one only has to look at the historical development of the German state, or the amount of work that the "commerce clause" in the US constitution has put to. If the overwhelming majority of UK citizens felt that to be British is just part of their overarching European identity, then* not only would Remain have won, but the only euro-referendum we would have had would have concerned membership of the single currency. If the vast majority of UK citizens saw being British as actively antithetical to being European, then** Leave would presumably have won a stonking majority. (* - unless "love Europe but hate its institutions" were to be a major factor; ** - unless there was a widespread, possibly delusional, belief that Britain can single-handedly stall European integration so the EU would remain merely a convenient trading arrangement even though we disagree with its core ideals and aspirations.)
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, yet certainly the majority of Brits would be uncomfortable with continued membership of an EU which went down the route preferred by Schulz, Verhofstadt, Macron and pretty much any leading figures from the Commission. Given the momentum for closer integration, some sort of break or switch to associate membership has been, in the long run, on the cards since the 1990s. Whether these arrangements are "good" or "bad" in the long run includes a lot of hypothesising about counterfactuals, as well as questions about national identity and the extent to which Britain is a "good fit" for the European project, which are hard to answer in an evidence-based way. Economic forecasts can be part of the picture, but not all of it.
I think that when you have competing ideas of what is good, then coming to an objective of the truth is almost impossible. Things that I think of as good are bad to many Remainers, and vice versa.
To a large extent Brexit concerns issues of national identity, in a similar way to how the Scottish independence referendum (and every other independence referendum ever) has touched on issues like the economy and how cross-border issues will be dealt with, but people were still very much swayed by whether they saw themselves as having an over-arching British identity or whether their Scottish identity took precedence.
The route the EU has been heading down, from Maastricht onwards, is about far more than cutting down trade barriers and making people richer. In fact trade policy and common regulation is a great platform for building a new country - one only has to look at the historical development of the German state, or the amount of work that the "commerce clause" in the US constitution has put to. If the overwhelming majority of UK citizens felt that to be British is just part of their overarching European identity, then* not only would Remain have won, but the only euro-referendum we would have had would have concerned membership of the single currency. If the vast majority of UK citizens saw being British as actively antithetical to being European, then** Leave would presumably have won a stonking majority. (* - unless "love Europe but hate its institutions" were to be a major factor; ** - unless there was a widespread, possibly delusional, belief that Britain can single-handedly stall European integration so the EU would remain merely a convenient trading arrangement even though we disagree with its core ideals and aspirations.)
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, yet certainly the majority of Brits would be uncomfortable with continued membership of an EU which went down the route preferred by Schulz, Verhofstadt, Macron and pretty much any leading figures from the Commission. Given the momentum for closer integration, some sort of break or switch to associate membership has been, in the long run, on the cards since the 1990s. Whether these arrangements are "good" or "bad" in the long run includes a lot of hypothesising about counterfactuals, as well as questions about national identity and the extent to which Britain is a "good fit" for the European project, which are hard to answer in an evidence-based way. Economic forecasts can be part of the picture, but not all of it.
This is excellent stuff. Joe Chamberlain knew what he was talking about when he extolled the importance of tariff reform (to be followed by imperial federation) to ensure that the Empire had a future. He failed, and as he predicted, the Empire disintegrated.
This is excellent stuff. Joe Chamberlain knew what he was talking about when he extolled the importance of tariff reform (to be followed by imperial federation) to ensure that the Empire had a future. He failed, and as he predicted, the Empire disintegrated.
If only he hadn’t!
The federalists have always been right, in whatever context they've found themselves.
I think that when you have competing ideas of what is good, then coming to an objective of the truth is almost impossible. Things that I think of as good are bad to many Remainers, and vice versa.
To a large extent Brexit concerns issues of national identity, in a similar way to how the Scottish independence referendum (and every other independence referendum ever) has touched on issues like the economy and how cross-border issues will be dealt with, but people were still very much swayed by whether they saw themselves as having an over-arching British identity or whether their Scottish identity took precedence.
The route the EU has been heading down, from Maastricht onwards, is about far more than cutting down trade barriers and making people richer. In fact trade policy and common regulation is a great platform for building a new country - one only has to look at the historical development of the German state, or the amount of work that the "commerce clause" in the US constitution has put to. If the overwhelming majority of UK citizens felt that to be British is just part of their overarching European identity, then* not only would Remain have won, but the only euro-referendum we would have had would have concerned membership of the single currency. If the vast majority of UK citizens saw being British as actively antithetical to being European, then** Leave would presumably have won a stonking majority. (* - unless "love Europe but hate its institutions" were to be a major factor; ** - unless there was a widespread, possibly delusional, belief that Britain can single-handedly stall European integration so the EU would remain merely a convenient trading arrangement even though we disagree with its core ideals and aspirations.)
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, yet certainly the majority of Brits would be uncomfortable with continued membership of an EU which went down the route preferred by Schulz, Verhofstadt, Macron and pretty much any leading figures from the Commission. Given the momentum for closer integration, some sort of break or switch to associate membership has been, in the long run, on the cards since the 1990s. Whether these arrangements are "good" or "bad" in the long run includes a lot of hypothesising about counterfactuals, as well as questions about national identity and the extent to which Britain is a "good fit" for the European project, which are hard to answer in an evidence-based way. Economic forecasts can be part of the picture, but not all of it.
I would largely agree, but her in lies the problems for the future.
I am not the only one who will not forgive the Brexiteers for amputating my European identity. I will not be the only one who votes against the Tories whatever the post Brexit economy is like.
I voted Tory in 2010, as did Mrs Fox. Never again.
Having said all that, I strongly agree with AM's core point. Bearing in mind Mrs May lukewarmly campaigned to Remain herself, the Tory onslaught on remain-supporters is plain silly and - given her situation in the polls - surely counterproductive.
Can they own Brexit, not declare war on Remainers, and yet avoid coming up with a please-noone mushy compromise? I dunno, but I'd have liked them to at least try to have done some big strategic thinking, come up with a new place for Britain in the world, and try to sell it. Occasionally one gets a whiff of it - an emphasis on how it will be open for business and trade, for example - but radio silence seems to return just as quickly. A shame as there are some remain-voters whose fears would be somewhat assuaged by this emphasis on openness.
Heresy of the day: no government will go around trumpeting that its policies will make their country poorer, more culturally cut-off and homogeneous, and more isolated on the international stage. But there is a case to be made even in favour of these things. If international isolation makes us less likely to get sucked into conflicts on European borders in 20 years' time - say Ukraine or Moldova - it might do us some good, actually. Countries do benefit from diversity but immigration also has costs, not all financial. There's something to be said, even if it is unpalatable to say it these days, for a managed migration flow. And economic growth is not the be-all and end-all, and there are certainly people who would feel happier - "better off" in utility terms - to sacrifice at least a little of it, if they are more comfortable with the country they live in as a result, for example because it allows them to maintain national independence and identity.
Ultra-heresy of the day: on the flip side, no government - at least a British one - would trumpet a policy that by the ratchet effect enables the state they govern to be amorphously absorbed by the nascent regional superpower whose membership it is committed to. Even if this was the intention of their policy, rather than a risk or side-effect they were hoping they could control and slow down the pace of, in this country they know it wouldn't sell. But, if they did choose to sell it, there is actually a full-blast intellectual, cultural, geopolitical, economic and social case for Eurofederalism. For those who believe in that - be brave, make the case. It's arguable. See how persuadable the British public are. Maybe the youngsters are different to the oldies. If the best that Rejoiners can do is "let's get back into the EU and scrap all those outdated nationalist opt-out, because it will increase GDP by x-point-y percent" then no matter how evidence-based that figure is, (a) it's essentially disingenuous, (b) you'll ultimately fail.
This is excellent stuff. Joe Chamberlain knew what he was talking about when he extolled the importance of tariff reform (to be followed by imperial federation) to ensure that the Empire had a future. He failed, and as he predicted, the Empire disintegrated.
If only he hadn’t!
The federalists have always been right, in whatever context they've found themselves.
The U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand together would have been the largest country in the world, self-sufficient in strategic resources, with ample space for expansion and development, united by language, nationality and the Crown. Unfortunately our Bismarck came too late, and died too early.
The EU is a pretty poor substitute for that, and in my view, not good enough.
But, if they did choose to sell it, there is actually a full-blast intellectual, cultural, geopolitical, economic and social case for Eurofederalism. For those who believe in that - be brave, make the case. It's arguable. See how persuadable the British public are. Maybe the youngsters are different to the oldies. If the best that Rejoiners can do is "let's get back into the EU and scrap all those outdated nationalist opt-out, because it will increase GDP by x-point-y percent" then no matter how evidence-based that figure is, (a) it's essentially disingenuous, (b) you'll ultimately fail.
I fully agree with this. Furthermore the Eurosceptics are not used to arguing against it.
Very soon the conspiracy stuff and all the other rhetoric will go splat against the wall of reality.
In practice we know WTO hard Brexit would be like the economy having a heart attack because the people who actually make things work can lay out in detail how WTO fails. The hard leave camp dislike facts from HMRC or exporters and the like and prefer their rhetoric, hence attacking the experts as part of a conspiracy.
One side or the other is correct. A pity that getting the call wrong and the experts being correct is a price we can't afford to pay. Had a lovely debate at CLP on Friday, I laid out some facts and at the end a guy wearing a supermarket fleece came up to me sand said he didn't care about any of that, we just have to get out. I pointed out that he should care as his CEO had very clear detailed things to say about the impact of WTO, which apparently was a load of crap.
The biggest problem of the Brexit debate is that there appears to be no objective truth. Every article, analysis, post, tweet is utterly biased in one direction or the other. I would no more trust Amber Rudd or Vince Cable than I would Boris Johnson or JRM. All media outlets are equally biased.
One would hope that the civil service could be relied upon to provide some much needed objectivity but after the nonsense that they came out with seemingly on behalf the remain campaign I can well see why many do not trust them either.
I voted to remain and have no real idea what will happen post Brexit but my inclination is to believe that we'll eventually make the best of it whatever we decide to do. My suspicion is that the likes of Boris are reconciled to a fairly soft Brexit (JRM less so but who cares?) but the recent leaks re remaining in the customs union have in their eyes crossed a red line, hence the pressure brought to bear by the media.
If this is the case, This is fair enough if you believe (as I do) that those who voted leave will accept a soft Brexit but not a BINO, which staying in the customs union surely is. I did not vote for it, but I dread to think what will happen if we do not deliver a meaningful Brexit.
I don't agree that staying in the Customs Union would represent "BINO" to the average Leave voter. Brexit in the public mind is primarily about immigration, EU Budget contributions, as well as a healthy dose of the good old-fashioned generic protest vote; I don't think many people were voting to do "trade deals around the world" outside of the Dan Hannan pseudo-intellectual wing.
Very soon the conspiracy stuff and all the other rhetoric will go splat against the wall of reality.
In practice we know WTO hard Brexit would be like the economy having a heart attack because the people who actually make things work can lay out in detail how WTO fails. The hard leave camp dislike facts from HMRC or exporters and the like and prefer their rhetoric, hence attacking the experts as part of a conspiracy.
One side or the other is correct. A pity that getting the call wrong and the experts being correct is a price we can't afford to pay. Had a lovely debate at CLP on Friday, I laid out some facts and at the end a guy wearing a supermarket fleece came up to me sand said he didn't care about any of that, we just have to get out. I pointed out that he should care as his CEO had very clear detailed things to say about the impact of WTO, which apparently was a load of crap.
Experts. Who needs them when you have rhetoric
Patronising snobbery was a tory thing, back in the day.
I might wish it were otherwise, but the truth is that we British pro-Europeans are beginning to sound more and more like Betamax enthusiasts arguing the superior merits of their systems against the unstoppable VHS tide.
Without even losing the argument we have contrived to lose not just the battle, but the entire war. The British people, for all our efforts, have proved de Gaulle right, when he exercised his veto against our membership in 1963 and doubted whether our evolution “and the evolution of the universe might bring the English little by little to the Continent”.
The Universe has not so evolved. Judging by its newspapers and its politicians, the people of Britain don’t get Europe, don’t like Europe and don’t want Europe. I have done my best, but nothing will persuade older Britons that the EU is not just some updated, endless episode of ’Allo ’Allo! or younger Britons to take any interest in it. It’s over. Time to come out of the jungle with my hands up, lay down my rusty rifle and think of something else.
The Betamax metaphor is an interesting one for Brexit, but I would say the key takeaway is that VHS won out regardless of any intrinsic superiority, because it made itself the standard. On that logic, the EU, which is the standard for 27 countries and somewhat so for a couple more, is VHS while the UK, if it wishes to be different, is Betamax. The EU is the only game in town in Europe. That's the important context to whatever we do with Brexit.
How’s VHS doing these days?
Try as I might, I can't imagine Brexit Britain becoming the Netflix of global governance.
Touché, Charles. But VHS is the VHS of metaphors while Netflix is merely Betamax.
The EU was the best approach for its time. But it isn’t what is needed anymore.
My long term fear is that it ends up like the AustroHungarian Empire: loved and needed by no one, a country in search of a purpose. That’s not healthy in a geopolitical setting
To a large extent Brexit concerns issues of national identity, in a similar way to how the Scottish independence referendum (and every other independence referendum ever) has touched on issues like the economy and how cross-border issues will be dealt with, but people were still very much swayed by whether they saw themselves as having an over-arching British identity or whether their Scottish identity took precedence.
The route the EU has been heading down, from Maastricht onwards, is about far more than cutting down trade barriers and making people richer. In fact trade policy and common regulation is a great platform for building a new country - one only has to look at the historical development of the German state, or the amount of work that the "commerce clause" in the US constitution has put to. If the overwhelming majority of UK citizens felt that to be British is just part of their overarching European identity, then* not only would Remain have won, but the only euro-referendum we would have had would have concerned membership of the single currency. If the vast majority of UK citizens saw being British as actively antithetical to being European, then** Leave would presumably have won a stonking majority. (* - unless "love Europe but hate its institutions" were to be a major factor; ** - unless there was a widespread, possibly delusional, belief that Britain can single-handedly stall European integration so the EU would remain merely a convenient trading arrangement even though we disagree with its core ideals and aspirations.)
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, yet certainly the majority of Brits would be uncomfortable with continued membership of an EU which went down the route preferred by Schulz, Verhofstadt, Macron and pretty much any leading figures from the Commission. Given the momentum for closer integration, some sort of break or switch to associate membership has been, in the long run, on the cards since the 1990s. Whether these arrangements are "good" or "bad" in the long run includes a lot of hypothesising about counterfactuals, as well as questions about national identity and the extent to which Britain is a "good fit" for the European project, which are hard to answer in an evidence-based way. Economic forecasts can be part of the picture, but not all of it.
This is excellent stuff. Joe Chamberlain knew what he was talking about when he extolled the importance of tariff reform (to be followed by imperial federation) to ensure that the Empire had a future. He failed, and as he predicted, the Empire disintegrated.
If only he hadn’t!
I think Empire's reprieve would have been only temporary.
This is excellent stuff. Joe Chamberlain knew what he was talking about when he extolled the importance of tariff reform (to be followed by imperial federation) to ensure that the Empire had a future. He failed, and as he predicted, the Empire disintegrated.
If only he hadn’t!
The federalists have always been right, in whatever context they've found themselves.
The U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand together would have been the largest country in the world, self-sufficient in strategic resources, with ample space for expansion and development, united by language, nationality and the Crown. Unfortunately our Bismarck came too late, and died too early.
The EU is a pretty poor substitute for that, and in my view, not good enough.
We are where we are, and becoming more closely aligned with an EU including the UK must be a more attractive proposition for Canada, Australia and New Zealand than reconnecting with the mother country alone.
To a large extent Brexit concerns issues of national identity, in a similar way to how the Scottish independence referendum (and every other independence referendum ever) has touched on issues like the economy and how cross-border issues will be dealt with, but people were still very much swayed by whether they saw themselves as having an over-arching British identity or whether their Scottish identity took precedence.
The route the EU has been heading down, from Maastricht onwards, is about far more than cutting down trade barriers and making people richer. In fact trade policy and common regulation is a great platform for building a new country - one only has to look at the historical development of the German state, or the amount of work that the "commerce clause" in the US constitution has put to. If the overwhelming majority of UK citizens felt that to be British is just part of their overarching European identity, then* not only would Remain have won, but the only euro-referendum we would have had would have concerned membership of the single currency. If the vast majority of UK citizens saw being British as actively antithetical to being European, then** Leave would presumably have won a stonking majority. [SNIP]
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, yet certainly the majority of Brits would be uncomfortable with continued membership of an EU which went down the route preferred by Schulz, Verhofstadt, Macron and pretty much any leading figures from the Commission. Given the momentum for closer integration, some sort of break or switch to associate membership has been, in the long run, on the cards since the 1990s. Whether these arrangements are "good" or "bad" in the long run includes a lot of hypothesising about counterfactuals, as well as questions about national identity and the extent to which Britain is a "good fit" for the European project, which are hard to answer in an evidence-based way. Economic forecasts can be part of the picture, but not all of it.
It's presented as a truism that Brexit above all as a matter of identity. I challenge that. First of all practically no-one would see the EU as an alternative identity that excludes them being British, Scottish, English, Welsh etc. Only a small part, I believe, see the EU as incompatible with those identities. They might see the EU not workng for the UK or a malign thing we shouldn't have anything to do with, or alternatively that the EU is good for the UK and good for Europe. Those are practical and to some extent moral concerns. It matters because at some point practicalities will impose themselves and people aren't going to say, it's OK we can roast rats over the open fire because we're British.
I might wish it were otherwise, but the truth is that we British pro-Europeans are beginning to sound more and more like Betamax enthusiasts arguing the superior merits of their systems against the unstoppable VHS tide.
Without even losing the argument we have contrived to lose not just the battle, but the entire war. The British people, for all our efforts, have proved de Gaulle right, when he exercised his veto against our membership in 1963 and doubted whether our evolution “and the evolution of the universe might bring the English little by little to the Continent”.
The Universe has not so evolved. Judging by its newspapers and its politicians, the people of Britain don’t get Europe, don’t like Europe and don’t want Europe. I have done my best, but nothing will persuade older Britons that the EU is not just some updated, endless episode of ’Allo ’Allo! or younger Britons to take any interest in it. It’s over. Time to come out of the jungle with my hands up, lay down my rusty rifle and think of something else.
The Betamax metaphor is an interesting one for Brexit, but I would say the key takeaway is that VHS won out regardless of any intrinsic superiority, because it made itself the standard. On that logic, the EU, which is the standard for 27 countries and somewhat so for a couple more, is VHS while the UK, if it wishes to be different, is Betamax. The EU is the only game in town in Europe. That's the important context to whatever we do with Brexit.
How’s VHS doing these days?
Try as I might, I can't imagine Brexit Britain becoming the Netflix of global governance.
Touché, Charles. But VHS is the VHS of metaphors while Netflix is merely Betamax.
The EU was the best approach for its time. But it isn’t what is needed anymore.
My long term fear is that it ends up like the AustroHungarian Empire: loved and needed by no one, a country in search of a purpose. That’s not healthy in a geopolitical setting
It's already outlived the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and our inability to answer the question of how we can have a frictionless land border without it shows that it is indeed still extremely relevant to our present-day needs.
Having said all that, I strongly agree with AM's core point. Bearing in mind Mrs May lukewarmly campaigned to Remain herself, the Tory onslaught on remain-supporters is plain silly and - given her situation in the polls - surely counterproductive.
Snip
Ultra-heresy of the day: on the flip side, no government - at least a British one - would trumpet a policy that by the ratchet effect enables the state they govern to be amorphously absorbed by the nascent regional superpower whose membership it is committed to. Even if this was the intention of their policy, rather than a risk or side-effect they were hoping they could control and slow down the pace of, in this country they know it wouldn't sell. But, if they did choose to sell it, there is actually a full-blast intellectual, cultural, geopolitical, economic and social case for Eurofederalism. For those who believe in that - be brave, make the case. It's arguable. See how persuadable the British public are. Maybe the youngsters are different to the oldies. If the best that Rejoiners can do is "let's get back into the EU and scrap all those outdated nationalist opt-out, because it will increase GDP by x-point-y percent" then no matter how evidence-based that figure is, (a) it's essentially disingenuous, (b) you'll ultimately fail.
Lots of good stuff in here too, although it’s a gross exaggeration to say there has been a Tory ‘onslaught’ on Remain supporters.
Cameron decided that he couldn’t win the referendum with a positive case for Europe. He was correct tactically (few Brits are enthusiastic about the EU and very few are out-and-out federalists, pace williamglenn) but utterly wrong strategically.
The only coherent case for Britain to remain within the EU is if one believes our membership of a federal Europe is ultimately in our best interests, and thus the patriotic choice. That argument has not been made, but I think it would resonate with far more people post 23rd June 2016 than before the referendum. Look at the sharp uptick in the number of Brits who would like to join the Euro.
Whatever one thinks of Brexit, it has at least ended the deceitful integration by ratchet that has been underway since 1973. If we are to stay, it must be with the final destination in mind.
I am not the only one who will not forgive the Brexiteers for amputating my European identity. I will not be the only one who votes against the Tories whatever the post Brexit economy is like.
I voted Tory in 2010, as did Mrs Fox. Never again.
Yes, you nailed what I was attempting to say in my follow-up post. As an absolutely rabid Brexiteer, I see no issue with people having a European identity, and I'd feel silly saying I am "not European" - the tough question is whether you can take a step back from political union without leaving folk like you feel like part of their identity is being taken away. I think some people would always feel that but other people could be assuaged. Making it clear that Britain still has cultural ties with Europe, through - random, by no means the most important, example - university exchanges, still makes a lot of sense. (Having said that - Britain's greatest identity-related strength is that it is rarely binary. I'd encourage Commonwealth university exchange and Anglo-American exchanges for much the same reason as European ones are good.)
Incidentally, Team Tory don't seem to have got the hang of Britain's identity not being a binary issue and the avowed intent of many Brexiteers to rub salt into Remainers' wounds is terrible politics. Goodness knows what they're doing. They should stop, for the sake of their own party if nothing else.
Much appreciated. I haven't been hanging out on here a lot lately, been busy with other things and the signal-noise ratio here has been yet another casualty of Brexit! I do occasionally write a comment but I've got into the habit of deleting my drafts and logging out rather than posting, to avoid getting drawn in again. We'll see how well my willpower lasts...
I might wish it were otherwise, but the truth is that we British pro-Europeans are beginning to sound more and more like Betamax enthusiasts arguing the superior merits of their systems against the unstoppable VHS tide.
Without even losing the argument we have contrived to lose not just the battle, but the entire war. The British people, for all our efforts, have proved de Gaulle right, when he exercised his veto against our membership in 1963 and doubted whether our evolution “and the evolution of the universe might bring the English little by little to the Continent”.
The Universe has not so evolved. Judging by its newspapers and its politicians, the people of Britain don’t get Europe, don’t like Europe and don’t want Europe. I have done my best, but nothing will persuade older Britons that the EU is not just some updated, endless episode of ’Allo ’Allo! or younger Britons to take any interest in it. It’s over. Time to come out of the jungle with my hands up, lay down my rusty rifle and think of something else.
The Betamax metaphor is an interesting one for Brexit, but I would say the key takeaway is that VHS won out regardless of any intrinsic superiority, because it made itself the standard. On that logic, the EU, which is the standard for 27 countries and somewhat so for a couple more, is VHS while the UK, if it wishes to be different, is Betamax. The EU is the only game in town in Europe. That's the important context to whatever we do with Brexit.
How’s VHS doing these days?
Try as I might, I can't imagine Brexit Britain becoming the Netflix of global governance.
Touché, Charles. But VHS is the VHS of metaphors while Netflix is merely Betamax.
The EU was the best approach for its time. But it isn’t what is needed anymore.
My long term fear is that it ends up like the AustroHungarian Empire: loved and needed by no one, a country in search of a purpose. That’s not healthy in a geopolitical setting
It's already outlived the Austro-Hungarian Empire,
To a large extent Brexit concerns issues of national identity, in a similar way to how the Scottish independence referendum (and every other independence referendum ever) has touched on issues like the economy and how cross-border issues will be dealt with, but people were still very much swayed by whether they saw themselves as having an over-arching British identity or whether their Scottish identity took precedence.
The route the EU has been heading down, from Maastricht onwards, is about far more than cutting down trade barriers and making people richer. In fact trade policy and common regulation is a great platform for building a new country - one only has to look at the historical development of the German state, or the amount of work that the "commerce clause" in the US constitution has put to. If the overwhelming majority of UK citizens felt that to be British is just part of their overarching European identity, then* not only would Remain have won, but the only euro-referendum we would have had would have concerned membership of the single currency. If the vast majority of UK citizens saw being British as actively antithetical to being European, then** Leave would presumably have won a stonking majority. [SNIP]
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, yet certainly the majority of Brits would be uncomfortable with continued membership of an EU which went down the route preferred by Schulz, Verhofstadt, Macron and pretty much any leading figures from the Commission. Given the momentum for closer integration, some sort of break or switch to associate membership has been, in the long run, on the cards since the 1990s. Whether these arrangements are "good" or "bad" in the long run includes a lot of hypothesising about counterfactuals, as well as questions about national identity and the extent to which Britain is a "good fit" for the European project, which are hard to answer in an evidence-based way. Economic forecasts can be part of the picture, but not all of it.
It's presented as a truism that Brexit above all as a matter of identity. I challenge that. First of all practically no-one would see the EU as an alternative identity that excludes them being British, Scottish, English, Welsh etc. Only a small part, I believe, see the EU as incompatible with those identities. They might see the EU not workng for the UK or a malign thing we shouldn't have anything to do with, or alternatively that the EU is good for the UK and good for Europe. Those are practical and to some extent moral concerns. It matters because at some point practicalities will impose themselves and people aren't going to say, it's OK we can roast rats over the open fire because we're British.
On the Leave side, I'd say that there are millions of people who see the EU as a threat to their British identity, myself included.
To a large extent Brexit concerns issues of national identity, in a similar way to how the Scottish independence referendum (and every other independence referendum ever) has touched on issues like the economy and how cross-border issues will be dealt with, but people were still very much swayed by whether they saw themselves as having an over-arching British identity or whether their Scottish identity took precedence.
Snip
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, yet certainly the majority of Brits would be uncomfortable with continued membership of an EU which went down the route preferred by Schulz, Verhofstadt, Macron and pretty much any leading figures from the Commission. Given the momentum for closer integration, some sort of break or switch to associate membership has been, in the long run, on the cards since the 1990s. Whether these arrangements are "good" or "bad" in the long run includes a lot of hypothesising about counterfactuals, as well as questions about national identity and the extent to which Britain is a "good fit" for the European project, which are hard to answer in an evidence-based way. Economic forecasts can be part of the picture, but not all of it.
This is excellent stuff. Joe Chamberlain knew what he was talking about when he extolled the importance of tariff reform (to be followed by imperial federation) to ensure that the Empire had a future. He failed, and as he predicted, the Empire disintegrated.
If only he hadn’t!
I think Empire's reprieve would have been only temporary.
India, most of Africa and Asia would have been lost in any timeline.
I think Chamberlain was probably too late. The rot set in with the Durham report in the 1840s, when autonomy without representation at Westminster was adopted as the solution for the dominions-to-be.
The biggest problem of the Brexit debate is that there appears to be no objective truth. Every article, analysis, post, tweet is utterly biased in one direction or the other. I would no more trust Amber Rudd or Vince Cable than I would Boris Johnson or JRM. All media outlets are equally biased.
One would hope that the civil service could be relied upon to provide some much needed objectivity but after the nonsense that they came out with seemingly on behalf the remain campaign I can well see why many do not trust them either.
I voted to remain and have no real idea what will happen post Brexit but my inclination is to believe that we'll eventually make the best of it whatever we decide to do. My suspicion is that the likes of Boris are reconciled to a fairly soft Brexit (JRM less so but who cares?) but the recent leaks re remaining in the customs union have in their eyes crossed a red line, hence the pressure brought to bear by the media.
If this is the case, This is fair enough if you believe (as I do) that those who voted leave will accept a soft Brexit but not a BINO, which staying in the customs union surely is. I did not vote for it, but I dread to think what will happen if we do not deliver a meaningful Brexit.
I don't agree that staying in the Customs Union would represent "BINO" to the average Leave voter. Brexit in the public mind is primarily about immigration, EU Budget contributions, as well as a healthy dose of the good old-fashioned generic protest vote; I don't think many people were voting to do "trade deals around the world" outside of the Dan Hannan pseudo-intellectual wing.
Quite. Does anyone care whether the EU charges a 3% tariff on Peruvian guano and whether we should keep that tariff or reduce it to 2%? The question is a technical one. How much are we likely to change the tariff schedule in practice? I'm not an expert but there are people that can work it out. If we don't expect to change tariffs very much we should stay in the EU customs union for the benefits of it. If we expect big changes we need to be out of the Customs Union, but it will come with a big price tag in terms of friction with our major trading partner and the partial retention of third party deals.
I might wish it were otherwise, but the truth is that we British pro-Europeans are beginning to sound more and more like Betamax enthusiasts arguing the superior merits of their systems against the unstoppable VHS tide.
Without even losing the argument we have contrived to lose not just the battle, but the entire war. The British people, for all our efforts, have proved de Gaulle right, when he exercised his veto against our membership in 1963 and doubted whether our evolution “and the evolution of the universe might bring the English little by little to the Continent”.
The Universe has not so evolved. Judging by its newspapers and its politicians, the people of Britain don’t get Europe, don’t like Europe and don’t want Europe. I have done my best, but nothing will persuade older Britons that the EU is not just some updated, endless episode of ’Allo ’Allo! or younger Britons to take any interest in it. It’s over. Time to come out of the jungle with my hands up, lay down my rusty rifle and think of something else.
The Betamax metaphor is an interesting one for Brexit, but I would say the key takeaway is that VHS won out regardless of any intrinsic superiority, because it made itself the standard. On that logic, the EU, which is the standard for 27 countries and somewhat so for a couple more, is VHS while the UK, if it wishes to be different, is Betamax. The EU is the only game in town in Europe. That's the important context to whatever we do with Brexit.
How’s VHS doing these days?
Try as I might, I can't imagine Brexit Britain becoming the Netflix of global governance.
Touché, Charles. But VHS is the VHS of metaphors while Netflix is merely Betamax.
The EU was the best approach for its time. But it isn’t what is needed anymore.
My long term fear is that it ends up like the AustroHungarian Empire: loved and needed by no one, a country in search of a purpose. That’s not healthy in a geopolitical setting
It's already outlived the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and our inability to answer the question of how we can have a frictionless land border without it shows that it is indeed still extremely relevant to our present-day needs.
The traditional Irish solution to borders works. And if my people can’t stop shouting each other then so be it.
To a large extent Brexit concerns issues of national identity, in a similar way to how the Scottish independence referendum (and every other independence referendum ever) has touched on issues like the economy and how cross-border issues will be dealt with, but people were still very much swayed by whether they saw themselves as having an over-arching British identity or whether their Scottish identity took precedence.
The route the EU has been heading down, from Maastricht onwards, is about far more than cutting down trade barriers and making people richer. In fact trade policy and common regulation is a great platform for building a new country - one only has to look at the historical development of the German state, or the amount of work that the "commerce clause" in the US constitution has put to. If the overwhelming majority of UK citizens felt that to be British is just part of their overarching European identity, then* not only would Remain have won, but the only euro-referendum we would have had would have concerned membership of the single currency. If the vast majority of UK citizens saw being British as actively antithetical to being European, then** Leave would presumably have won a stonking majority. [SNIP]
I suspect the tru
It's presented as a truism that Brexit above all as a matter of identity. I challenge that. First of all practically no-one would see the EU as an alternative identity that excludes them being British, Scottish, English, Welsh etc. Only a small part, I believe, see the EU as incompatible with those identities. They might see the EU not workng for the UK or a malign thing we shouldn't have anything to do with, or alternatively that the EU is good for the UK and good for Europe. Those are practical and to some extent moral concerns. It matters because at some point practicalities will impose themselves and people aren't going to say, it's OK we can roast rats over the open fire because we're British.
On the Leave side, I'd say that there are millions of people who see the EU as a threat to their British identity, myself included.
I don't doubt that, but Brexiteers don't seem to realise that Remainers feel the polar opposite.
It is a matter of cultural values, and I don't think those change with age in the way that economic values do, which is why I expect that the UK will rejoin in time. Even if not, it will be a permanent culture war.
Is it just me, or have the weather presenters got decidedly less formal these days?
That weatherman was even less formally dressed when he appeared on the front of a certain magazine.
If I google it, will I have to run CCleaner and clear my browser history again?
You’ll be OK. Downloading Tor is not necessary.
Well, there's a relief
Incidentally, I purchased a certified refurbished Lenovo ThinkPad last year (see discussions with @rcs1000), having become a convert to the Cult ofthe Red Nipple, and of course the bastich thing came with Windows Bloody 10. I know how to clear down the history for Windows 3.1, XP, Vista and 7 but not 10. This is annoying...
To a large extent Brexit concerns issues of national identity, in a similar way to how the Scottish independence referendum (and every other independence referendum ever) has touched on issues like the economy and how cross-border issues will be dealt with, but people were still very much swayed by whether they saw themselves as having an over-arching British identity or whether their Scottish identity took precedence.
The route the EU has been heading down, from Maastricht onwards, is about far more than cutting down trade barriers and making people richer. In fact trade policy and common regulation is a great platform for building a new country - one only has to look at the historical development of the German state, or the amount of work that the "commerce clause" in the US constitution has put to. If the overwhelming majority of UK citizens felt that to be British is just part of their overarching European identity, then* not only would Remain have won, but the only euro-referendum we would have had would have concerned membership of the single currency. If the vast majority of UK citizens saw being British as actively antithetical to being European, then** Leave would presumably have won a stonking majority. [SNIP]
I suspect the tru
It's presented as a truism that Brexit above all as a matter of identity. I challenge that. First of all practically no-one would see the EU as an alternative identity that excludes them being British, Scottish, English, Welsh etc. Only a small part, I believe, see the EU as incompatible with those identities. They might see the EU not workng for the UK or a malign thing we shouldn't have anything to do with, or alternatively that the EU is good for the UK and good for Europe. Those are practical and to some extent moral concerns. It matters because at some point practicalities will impose themselves and people aren't going to say, it's OK we can roast rats over the open fire because we're British.
On the Leave side, I'd say that there are millions of people who see the EU as a threat to their British identity, myself included.
I don't doubt that, but Brexiteers don't seem to realise that Remainers feel the polar opposite.
It is a matter of cultural values, and I don't think those change with age in the way that economic values do, which is why I expect that the UK will rejoin in time. Even if not, it will be a permanent culture war.
Hitherto, attitudes towards the EU have altered as people have got older. People aged 59-70 in 2016 voted strongly for Remain in 1975. Strange as it may seem, I was hugely in favour of European Integration at university, when I considered it essential to counter the Warsaw Pact.
To a large extent Brexit concerns issues of national identity, in a similar way to how the Scottish independence referendum (and every other independence referendum ever) has touched on issues like the economy and how cross-border issues will be dealt with, but people were still very much swayed by whether they saw themselves as having an over-arching British identity or whether their Scottish identity took precedence.
The route the EU has been heading down, from Maastricht onwards, is about far more than cutting down trade barriers and making people richer. In fact trade policy and common regulation is a great platform for building a new country - one only has to look at the historical development of the German state, or the amount of work that the "commerce clause" in the US constitution has put to. If the overwhelming majority of UK citizens felt that to be British is just part of their overarching European identity, then* not only would Remain have won, but the only euro-referendum we would have had would have concerned membership of the single currency. If the vast majority of UK citizens saw being British as actively antithetical to being European, then** Leave would presumably have won a stonking majority. [SNIP]
I suspect the tru
It's presented as a truism that Brexit above all as a matter of identity. I challenge that. First of all practically no-one would see the EU as an alternative identity that excludes them being British, Scottish, English, Welsh etc. Only a small part, I believe, see the EU as incompatible with those identities. They might see the EU not workng for the UK or a malign thing we shouldn't have anything to do with, or alternatively that the EU is good for the UK and good for Europe. Those are practical and to some extent moral concerns. It matters because at some point practicalities will impose themselves and people aren't going to say, it's OK we can roast rats over the open fire because we're British.
On the Leave side, I'd say that there are millions of people who see the EU as a threat to their British identity, myself included.
I don't doubt that, but Brexiteers don't seem to realise that Remainers feel the polar opposite.
It is a matter of cultural values, and I don't think those change with age in the way that economic values do, which is why I expect that the UK will rejoin in time. Even if not, it will be a permanent culture war.
I think the demographics may be against you in the long run. Young people are generally more pro-European, but from looking at the pro-EU rallies in London the enthusiasts seem disproportionately white. As Britain grows less ethnically European, will appeals to European identity maintain their power?
Hitherto, attitudes towards the EU have altered as people have got older. People aged 59-70 in 2016 voted strongly for Remain in 1975. Strange as it may seem, I was hugely in favour of European Integration at university, when I considered it essential to counter the Warsaw Pact.
Do you think the average punter considers Brexit as a vote for no more integration or a vote to reverse the integration that has already taken place?
I'm struck by how many engaged Brexit voters still respond to arguments in favour of a USE by Verhofstaft or Schulz as relating to *our* future, not *their* future. Saying goodbye is hard to do, even for those who most wanted it.
To a large extent Brexit concerns issues of national identity, in a similar way to how the Scottish independence referendum (and every other independence referendum ever) has touched on issues like the economy and how cross-border issues will be dealt with, but people were still very much swayed by whether they saw themselves as having an over-arching British identity or whether their Scottish identity took precedence.
The route the EU has been heading down, from Maastricht onwards, is about far more than cutting down trade barriers and making people richer. In fact trade policy and common regulation is a great platform for building a new country - one only has to look at the historical development of the German state, or the amount of work that the "commerce clause" in the US constitution has put to. If the overwhelming majority of UK citizens felt that to be British is just part of their overarching European identity, then* not only would Remain have won, but the only euro-referendum we would have had would have concerned membership of the single currency. If the vast majority of UK citizens saw being British as actively antithetical to being European, then** Leave would presumably have won a stonking majority. [SNIP]
I suspect the tru
It's presented as a truism that Brexit above all as a matter of identity. I challenge that. First of all practically no-one would see the EU as an alternative identity that excludes them being British, Scottish, English, Welsh etc. Only a small part, I believe, see the EU as incompatible with those identities. They might see the EU not workng for the UK or a malign thing we shouldn't have anything to do with, or alternatively that the EU is good for the UK and good for Europe. Those are practical and to some extent moral concerns. It matters because at some point practicalities will impose themselves and people aren't going to say, it's OK we can roast rats over the open fire because we're British.
On the Leave side, I'd say that there are millions of people who see the EU as a threat to their British identity, myself included.
I don't doubt that, but Brexiteers don't seem to realise that Remainers feel the polar opposite.
It is a matter of cultural values, and I don't think those change with age in the way that economic values do, which is why I expect that the UK will rejoin in time. Even if not, it will be a permanent culture war.
I can't regard Brexit as being a threat to my European Identify because I do not have a European Identity.
A lot of remain voters were lukewarm on the EU, and once we decided to leave then they just accepted the result. So it isn't true that the tories have given up on the 48% or anything like that.
But the tories do have a major problem, in that they are out of touch regarding what Brexit means to ordinary people. Most people don't know, and don't care, what the customs union is. I would hazard a guess that ignorance runs to about 99% of the general population, myself included, if I am honest. I haven't got a clue, and I sit there and read newspapers. I've read books about Brexit. But I don't know how the customs union works. Neither, it turns out, do many MP's, including Nadine Dorries, ultra Brexiteer.
For many people, Brexit was all about control over laws and borders. They don't care about the customs union. They don't care about trade deals. Its totally irrellevant to 99% of people.
To a large extent Brexit concerns issues of national identity, in a similar way to how the Scottish independence referendum (and every other independence referendum ever) has touched on issues like the economy and how cross-border issues will be dealt with, but people were still very much swayed by whether they saw themselves as having an over-arching British identity or whether their Scottish identity took precedence. If the vast majority of UK citizens saw being British as actively antithetical to being European, then** Leave would presumably have won a stonking majority. [SNIP]
I suspect the tru
It's presented as a truism that Brexit above all as a matter of identity. I challenge that. First of all practically no-one would see the EU as an alternative identity that excludes them being British, Scottish, English, Welsh etc. Only a small part, I believe, see the EU as incompatible with those identities. They might see the EU not workng for the UK or a malign thing we shouldn't have anything to do with, or alternatively that the EU is good for the UK and good for Europe. Those are practical and to some extent moral concerns. It matters because at some point practicalities will impose themselves and people aren't going to say, it's OK we can roast rats over the open fire because we're British.
On the Leave side, I'd say that there are millions of people who see the EU as a threat to their British identity, myself included.
I don't doubt that, but Brexiteers don't seem to realise that Remainers feel the polar opposite.
It is a matter of cultural values, and I don't think those change with age in the way that economic values do, which is why I expect that the UK will rejoin in time. Even if not, it will be a permanent culture war.
I'm not quite sure what the polar opposite is - not being pedantic, just not sure quite what you mean. I think it possible to retain a British identity within the EU but the progressives need to see the scale of the problem. There was an article in the Guardian the other about the Hijab being worn in Primary Schools. The writer had a preference for showing her hair in public but was unhappy at the Head of Ofsted talking about 'British values' - clearly a term that wasn't likely to encourage cross-cultural dialogue. Now I doubt 1% of people have read the article and most of them probably voted remain. But it is something that is in the air and people feel it. How do outward looking liberals deal with it?
JRM et el appear to hold up the Economists for Free Trade as the place to go for the non- establishment data on Brexit - I must admit there's lots of big numbers and anti-EU rhetoric in their publications but they're very thin on detail. When their main paper has sentences like below - their credibility looks increasingly shaky:
" Free from the shackles of the EU, consumers will be free to buy knobbly pears, to ditch dim energy- saving light bulbs and embrace more powerful vacuum cleaners. "
To a large extent Brexit concerns issues of national identity, in a similar way to how the Scottish independence referendum (and every other independence referendum ever) has touched on issues like the economy and how cross-border issues will be dealt with, but people were still very much swayed by whether they saw themselves as having an over-arching British identity or whether their Scottish identity took precedence.
The route the EU has been heading down, from Maastricht onwards, is about far more than cutting down trade barriers and making people richer. In fact trade policy and common regulation is a great platform for building a new country - one only has to look at the historical development of the German state, or the amount of work that the "commerce clause" in the US constitution has put to. If the overwhelming majority of UK citizens felt that to be British is just part of their overarching European identity, then* not only would
It's presented as a truism that Brexit above all as a matter of identity. I challenge that. First of all practically no-one would see the EU as an alternative identity that excludes them being British, Scottish, English, Welsh etc.
On the Leave side, I'd say that there are millions of people who see the EU as a threat to their British identity, myself included.
I don't doubt that, but Brexiteers don't seem to realise that Remainers feel the polar opposite.
It is a matter of cultural values, and I don't think those change with age in the way that economic values do, which is why I expect that the UK will rejoin in time. Even if not, it will be a permanent culture war.
I think the demographics may be against you in the long run. Young people are generally more pro-European, but from looking at the pro-EU rallies in London the enthusiasts seem disproportionately white. As Britain grows less ethnically European, will appeals to European identity maintain their power?
They might, but I don’t think you can be so sure. Brexit Britain may well grow more European, as the 3 million young and fertile, but currently non voting, citizens get naturalised.
More than that, it does depend on how Brexit takes form. If it continues being an anti-immigration, yet pro economic globalisation, then I cannot see BME Brits being enamoured, or the "left behind" for that matter. If it takes the form of a Corbynite Brexit, open to migrants and willing to protect indigenous industries, maybe less so.
Comments
It does get a fair number of tourists, but is a big Island so not too overwhelmed. Tourism is big enough to have infrastructure, but there is enough other work to keep it from merely being a playground. Those who stay in all inclusive really miss out, but that is usually the case in my opinion.
For Tories own no argument but force;
With equal skill, to Cambridge books he sent;
For Whigs admit no force but argument
It is not in the public interest for democracy to be ignored and for over half the population to feel that democracy does not work. Remoaners might be angry but they lost the referendum and being bad losers and insulting the majority who want Brexit is not in the public interest.
Indeed Remoaners tend to arrogantly associate what is in the public interest with their own views, and to define the "public" as if it is something totally different from the seventeen and a half million people who voted for Brexit.
Millions of people voted for and support Brexit because they believe that it is not in the public interest for the UK to be under the control of a foreign power, the EU Empire, they believe that it is in the public interest for the UK to be independent in the same way as many Scots want Scotland to be independent, and some Catalans want Catalonia to be independent. It is not in the public interest for the UK not to control its own borders, not to be able to control the level of immigration, not to be able to control its own laws.
I might wish it were otherwise, but the truth is that we British pro-Europeans are beginning to sound more and more like Betamax enthusiasts arguing the superior merits of their systems against the unstoppable VHS tide.
Without even losing the argument we have contrived to lose not just the battle, but the entire war. The British people, for all our efforts, have proved de Gaulle right, when he exercised his veto against our membership in 1963 and doubted whether our evolution “and the evolution of the universe might bring the English little by little to the Continent”.
The Universe has not so evolved. Judging by its newspapers and its politicians, the people of Britain don’t get Europe, don’t like Europe and don’t want Europe. I have done my best, but nothing will persuade older Britons that the EU is not just some updated, endless episode of ’Allo ’Allo! or younger Britons to take any interest in it. It’s over. Time to come out of the jungle with my hands up, lay down my rusty rifle and think of something else.
https://independentblogposts.wordpress.com/2018/02/04/the-unstoppable-vhs-tide/
The only issue with multiculturalism I saw was a considerable dislike of the very wealthy Indian families who visit in big numbers.
One would hope that the civil service could be relied upon to provide some much needed objectivity but after the nonsense that they came out with seemingly on behalf the remain campaign I can well see why many do not trust them either.
I voted to remain and have no real idea what will happen post Brexit but my inclination is to believe that we'll eventually make the best of it whatever we decide to do. My suspicion is that the likes of Boris are reconciled to a fairly soft Brexit (JRM less so but who cares?) but the recent leaks re remaining in the customs union have in their eyes crossed a red line, hence the pressure brought to bear by the media.
If this is the case, This is fair enough if you believe (as I do) that those who voted leave will accept a soft Brexit but not a BINO, which staying in the customs union surely is. I did not vote for it, but I dread to think what will happen if we do not deliver a meaningful Brexit.
It means whatever the loon-waving Brexiter fringe faction wants it to mean.
There is probably an uneasy majority in the country, and in parliament for EEA. It doesn’t solve FOM but Europeans have stopped coming anyway (the last quarter had net European migration at statistically insignificant).
We need someone with the balls to secure that, at least for transition, and kick final status down the road. Brexiters can then be free to argue for the North Korea option, and hardcore Remainers to rejoin.
The rest of us can get on with our lives.
It'll be a refresher given that we might be having a Tory leadership contest soon and the Tories use a quasi-AV system to elect their leaders.
Oh, my coat!
The route the EU has been heading down, from Maastricht onwards, is about far more than cutting down trade barriers and making people richer. In fact trade policy and common regulation is a great platform for building a new country - one only has to look at the historical development of the German state, or the amount of work that the "commerce clause" in the US constitution has put to. If the overwhelming majority of UK citizens felt that to be British is just part of their overarching European identity, then* not only would Remain have won, but the only euro-referendum we would have had would have concerned membership of the single currency. If the vast majority of UK citizens saw being British as actively antithetical to being European, then** Leave would presumably have won a stonking majority. (* - unless "love Europe but hate its institutions" were to be a major factor; ** - unless there was a widespread, possibly delusional, belief that Britain can single-handedly stall European integration so the EU would remain merely a convenient trading arrangement even though we disagree with its core ideals and aspirations.)
I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, yet certainly the majority of Brits would be uncomfortable with continued membership of an EU which went down the route preferred by Schulz, Verhofstadt, Macron and pretty much any leading figures from the Commission. Given the momentum for closer integration, some sort of break or switch to associate membership has been, in the long run, on the cards since the 1990s. Whether these arrangements are "good" or "bad" in the long run includes a lot of hypothesising about counterfactuals, as well as questions about national identity and the extent to which Britain is a "good fit" for the European project, which are hard to answer in an evidence-based way. Economic forecasts can be part of the picture, but not all of it.
My Father in Law on safari wearing a tie was a classic of style...
If only he hadn’t!
I am not the only one who will not forgive the Brexiteers for amputating my European identity. I will not be the only one who votes against the Tories whatever the post Brexit economy is like.
I voted Tory in 2010, as did Mrs Fox. Never again.
Can they own Brexit, not declare war on Remainers, and yet avoid coming up with a please-noone mushy compromise? I dunno, but I'd have liked them to at least try to have done some big strategic thinking, come up with a new place for Britain in the world, and try to sell it. Occasionally one gets a whiff of it - an emphasis on how it will be open for business and trade, for example - but radio silence seems to return just as quickly. A shame as there are some remain-voters whose fears would be somewhat assuaged by this emphasis on openness.
Heresy of the day: no government will go around trumpeting that its policies will make their country poorer, more culturally cut-off and homogeneous, and more isolated on the international stage. But there is a case to be made even in favour of these things. If international isolation makes us less likely to get sucked into conflicts on European borders in 20 years' time - say Ukraine or Moldova - it might do us some good, actually. Countries do benefit from diversity but immigration also has costs, not all financial. There's something to be said, even if it is unpalatable to say it these days, for a managed migration flow. And economic growth is not the be-all and end-all, and there are certainly people who would feel happier - "better off" in utility terms - to sacrifice at least a little of it, if they are more comfortable with the country they live in as a result, for example because it allows them to maintain national independence and identity.
Ultra-heresy of the day: on the flip side, no government - at least a British one - would trumpet a policy that by the ratchet effect enables the state they govern to be amorphously absorbed by the nascent regional superpower whose membership it is committed to. Even if this was the intention of their policy, rather than a risk or side-effect they were hoping they could control and slow down the pace of, in this country they know it wouldn't sell. But, if they did choose to sell it, there is actually a full-blast intellectual, cultural, geopolitical, economic and social case for Eurofederalism. For those who believe in that - be brave, make the case. It's arguable. See how persuadable the British public are. Maybe the youngsters are different to the oldies. If the best that Rejoiners can do is "let's get back into the EU and scrap all those outdated nationalist opt-out, because it will increase GDP by x-point-y percent" then no matter how evidence-based that figure is, (a) it's essentially disingenuous, (b) you'll ultimately fail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustive_ballot
The EU is a pretty poor substitute for that, and in my view, not good enough.
In practice we know WTO hard Brexit would be like the economy having a heart attack because the people who actually make things work can lay out in detail how WTO fails. The hard leave camp dislike facts from HMRC or exporters and the like and prefer their rhetoric, hence attacking the experts as part of a conspiracy.
One side or the other is correct. A pity that getting the call wrong and the experts being correct is a price we can't afford to pay. Had a lovely debate at CLP on Friday, I laid out some facts and at the end a guy wearing a supermarket fleece came up to me sand said he didn't care about any of that, we just have to get out. I pointed out that he should care as his CEO had very clear detailed things to say about the impact of WTO, which apparently was a load of crap.
Experts. Who needs them when you have rhetoric
My long term fear is that it ends up like the AustroHungarian Empire: loved and needed by no one, a country in search of a purpose. That’s not healthy in a geopolitical setting
Cameron decided that he couldn’t win the referendum with a positive case for Europe. He was correct tactically (few Brits are enthusiastic about the EU and very few are out-and-out federalists, pace williamglenn) but utterly wrong strategically.
The only coherent case for Britain to remain within the EU is if one believes our membership of a federal Europe is ultimately in our best interests, and thus the patriotic choice. That argument has not been made, but I think it would resonate with far more people post 23rd June 2016 than before the referendum. Look at the sharp uptick in the number of Brits who would like to join the Euro.
Whatever one thinks of Brexit, it has at least ended the deceitful integration by ratchet that has been underway since 1973. If we are to stay, it must be with the final destination in mind.
Incidentally, Team Tory don't seem to have got the hang of Britain's identity not being a binary issue and the avowed intent of many Brexiteers to rub salt into Remainers' wounds is terrible politics. Goodness knows what they're doing. They should stop, for the sake of their own party if nothing else. Much appreciated. I haven't been hanging out on here a lot lately, been busy with other things and the signal-noise ratio here has been yet another casualty of Brexit! I do occasionally write a comment but I've got into the habit of deleting my drafts and logging out rather than posting, to avoid getting drawn in again. We'll see how well my willpower lasts...
I think Chamberlain was probably too late. The rot set in with the Durham report in the 1840s, when autonomy without representation at Westminster was adopted as the solution for the dominions-to-be.
https://twitter.com/JohnOBrennan2/status/960249179472891904
It is a matter of cultural values, and I don't think those change with age in the way that economic values do, which is why I expect that the UK will rejoin in time. Even if not, it will be a permanent culture war.
Incidentally, I purchased a certified refurbished Lenovo ThinkPad last year (see discussions with @rcs1000), having become a convert to the Cult of the Red Nipple, and of course the bastich thing came with Windows Bloody 10. I know how to clear down the history for Windows 3.1, XP, Vista and 7 but not 10. This is annoying...
They might, but I don’t think you can assume.
I'm struck by how many engaged Brexit voters still respond to arguments in favour of a USE by Verhofstaft or Schulz as relating to *our* future, not *their* future. Saying goodbye is hard to do, even for those who most wanted it.
Gibraltarians get to see the Spanish state up close, and it's not a pretty sight.
But the tories do have a major problem, in that they are out of touch regarding what Brexit means to ordinary people. Most people don't know, and don't care, what the customs union is. I would hazard a guess that ignorance runs to about 99% of the general population, myself included, if I am honest. I haven't got a clue, and I sit there and read newspapers. I've read books about Brexit. But I don't know how the customs union works. Neither, it turns out, do many MP's, including Nadine Dorries, ultra Brexiteer.
For many people, Brexit was all about control over laws and borders. They don't care about the customs union. They don't care about trade deals. Its totally irrellevant to 99% of people.
Number 10 rules out customs union:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/04/cabinet-united-brexit-trade-strategy-amber-rudd-theresa-may-customs-union
But is not ruling out a customs agreement (ie cooperation).
" Free from the shackles of the EU, consumers will be free to buy knobbly pears, to ditch dim energy- saving light bulbs and embrace more powerful vacuum cleaners. "
https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Economists-for-Free-Trade-NME-Paper.pdf