seigneur wrote:

Another aspect, there are historically invading/colonizing countries on the one hand and the colonized on the other. Britain is the prime example of a historical colonial empire. Many are the peoples and nations you have invaded, exploited, annihilated or assimilated. From this perspective, you are currently just receiving your own karma, and this karma is not yet full.

Most Brits weren't even alive when the Empire existed, so I don't see how they are to blame.

It's interesting to see how different countries handle this. The politicians of the bigger EU countries (historical colonial powers plus Germany and the Nordic countries) tend to try to be more generous. That's understandable, because they have a colonial past (and thus a sense of historical urgency to amend their mistakes) and/or the brute assimilating capacity. The problem arises when they delegate these sentiments to the Eastern EU members, who are historically oppressed and whose native populations are small enough to feel threatened by mass immigration. As a reaction, nationalism/fascism is concretely reappearing as we speak, even within the big/generous countries themselves, so they have no excuse.

It must be remembered that the German and Swedish leaders here differ from much of their population. Germany, somewhat understandably, has certain caution towards any expression of national identity and opposition to immigration. But many, many regular Germans are not thrilled by the million refugees (some really refugees, some not) that reached Germany last year. Leaving aside questions of community and culture, the economic and social strain of such migration is huge. They have to be fed, clothed, and housed. In many cases, I believe, the public houses that were set aside for native Germans have been reallocated to the recent migrants. Many local authorities are annoyed at the central government for the strain placed upon them. 

 In places like Sweden and Denmark there are similar problems. In Denmark, I believe more than 50% of sexual assaults are committed by people born outside Denmark, even though they are still well under 50% of the population. Whatever the value of the traditional social democracy in these countries, mass immigration has threatened it. These were relatively homogeneous societies, and it was one thing paying a huge percentage of tax to get lavish public benefits in such a society, but it is another in a society in which the bonds of a homogeneous culture do not exist. 

Just to add my two cents, from the continental perspective Britain never was a proper member of the EU. Up front, Britain negotiated a ridiculous list of extraordinary exceptions for themselves and even then kept whining and threatening at every turn everafter (e.g. remember Cameron last year at EU meetings). Britain never had any meaningful sense of internationalism, never any conciliatory spirit, political compromise, much less any alignment to the EU policies and regulations. From this perspective, Britain is good riddance.*

This is a common, but false view of Britain's post-war relationship to Europe. Actually, after the war, Britain was very engaged with Europe. We were pivotal in setting up the Council of Europe and the EFTA. But we sought an intergovernmental model of European relations. This model was conducted through the interactions and partnerships of sovereign governments. The EEC model was supergovernmental. Those behind it thought that true unity and peace on the continent could only exist if national separatism was limited and an authority (ultimately to turn into a federal superstate) above the governments, with requisite power, existed. I don't see why internationalism and political compromise should mean we have to be bound to a fledgling superstate, just as I don't see why engagement with Europe should mean supergovernmentalism.

The title of Booker and North's The Great Deception refe​rs first and foremost to the self-deception of successive British governments. They didn't understand the nature of the EU, its ultimate federalist goal, and its gradual but remorseless growth of power and competences. If the British held back from some aspects of the EU it is because they were confused at why they were necessary. And they were confused because they didn't understand the primacy of political union in the European project. But, still, it would be a mistake to think of Britain as not manifesting sufficient solidarity to the EU. The British governments not only went very, very far in chaining us to the EU, but we tended to live up to our obligations in it. Some governments, such as the French, were far less enthusiastic about always living up to their obligations. The British also tended not to try and milk the EU for their own interests in as brazen a way as many of the governments of Southern Europe and, above all, the French. At one point about 90% of the EU budget was spent on agricultural subsidies, of which most went to French farmers. British civil servants were famous for gold plating EU directives, even unpopular ones, which meant not only enthusiastically enacting them but adding to them according to their spirit.

Further, Brexit manifests the internal weakness of the whole EU structure. It's always been clear that there are various cracks in the very foundation. Instead of repairing them, Britain contributed to exacerbating them. No good in any of this either way.

The EU is the Monnet Method. To try to change that would be like trying to switch the current American constitution for the Articles of Confederation. The futile attempt at renegotiation by Cameron (if it was even sincere, which I doubt) shows this.
 

I watched half of Scruton's speech. He talks about how different Britain's legal system is from the EU, and how from the British perspective, the British system is as European as the EU system. Well, the natural retort would be that the EU system is also as European as the British system, and with good will the two could have been reconciled. There just never was any good will. That's about it.

 Reconciled in what way? The British legal system he is talking about is the common law system, trial by jury, presumption of innocence, and the historical rights that Englishmen that have grown up over centuries. I don't see what Britain would have to gain by trying to reconcile this legacy with the combination of civil law and human rights ideology at the heart of the EU legal system. What reconciliation there has been hardly seems to have given us much to boast about. It seems to have just added to forces trying to erode the traditional legal rights and duties of Englishmen.
 
 

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Peter Hitchens's Sunday Column on this issue is a good read:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/06/boston-lincolngrad-i-saw-the-seething-resentment-now-it-is-time-to-finish-the-revolution.html

 
Interesting. Given these divisions, how would a snap election play out?

seigneur wrote:

To say that the EEC model is "false" and, by implication, the intergovernmental model is right, you preclude any reconciliation. 
 Either way, my view is not false, at least not in these terms. I am strictly anti-EU. What I wrote, I wrote to explain why Britain and Brussels never got along. It's because Britain was not cooperative​.

I'm not sure what you mean by calling the model false. I didn't call the model false. I called the view that Britain has been uncooperative or somehow not tried to engage with Europe since the Second World War false. Britain has. I'm not sure why we should try and seek reconciliation with an European project bent on a federal superstate? Britain has been cooperative, but it has never understood the nature of the EU properly. But I don't see what is the need for that nature. Peace and prosperity in Europe doesn't need the sort of ever closer union sought by Brussels. Maybe I'm mad, but I believe in the nation state and don't think we need to get rid of it, or even seriously compromise it, to cooperate with our European neighbours. Supergovernmentalism doesn't seem an obvious path to me; it seems a strange one that needs far more discussion and agreement than the Eurocrats have ever really sought, especially from the British nation. Only by assuming supergovernmentalism is not something extraordinary could one think the main problem has been Britain's uncooperativeness. In fact, British governments have been far too cooperative, given the nature of the EU.

Moreover, I linked to the official EU reaction to Brexit. Whatever it is, it's not "false". They tell you what they think about you. It's a political reality you must deal with.

 I'm really not sure how you are using false here or what you are calling false. Any judgment about cooperativeness and international engagement is not going to be precise, but my point is only that a very good argument (I think a better one than the reverse) can be made that Britain has been cooperative with Europe since WWII and has engaged with Europe.

That's what I said, didn't I?

I mean reconciliation in terms of its effects in Britain.

As if you were somehow special in this.

I wouldn't go as far as some, but I do think one thing Britain, or England, can boast of is its historical legal system and historic liberties and duties. I think we had a very good legal system based a unique blend of principles and institutions, and I don't see anything to be gained by trying to reconcile it with the blend of civil law, abstract-liberal human rights ideology, and bureaucratic directives of the EU. 

What is special in this is that Britain is the only one who thinks they should be exempt from whatever is going on in the rest of Europe, except reap the benefits.

I'm not sure what this is meant to mean. Britain pays more than its fair share into the EU; it gets back less than many EU nations; and its has never tried to milk the EU in the same way France and some other nations have. The problem is that the Eurocrats have welded onto the benefits of the EU the pretentions of ever closer union. This welding together is utterly unnecessary. For the sake of argument, let us say that the common market (which is different from the single market), for example, is a genuine benefit. Why on earth it should require the vast power and influence of the Brussels regime is hard to see. That is, it is hard to see unless you realise that the common market, and economic union, was always secondary to the Eurocrats. Economic union was always supposed to support political union, which was the true goal of the European project from the days of Jean Monnet and Paul-Henri Spaak onwards.
 

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I called the view that Britain has been uncooperative or somehow not tried to engage with Europe since the Second World War false.

I was talking about a different time frame - the actual EU as called EU, or at best EEC. They got a good taste of British cooperation by sitting with Cameron at the same table all last year. You may make me reconsider my rhetorics, but this won't change the impression Brussels has about Britain.

Edit: To be very blunt, Brussels is the wrong word here. I linked to the statement of European Council, the intergovernmental function of EU. You praised the intergovernmental ideal, right? But this is where Cameron had all his trouble. This is the institution that gave Britain a failing grade right now. You may call the grade false, but that's how they assess Britain.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

seigneur wrote:

What is special in this is that Britain is the only one who thinks they should be exempt from whatever is going on in the rest of Europe, except reap the benefits.

I'm not sure what this is meant to mean. Britain pays more than its fair share into the EU; it gets back less than many EU nations; and its has never tried to milk the EU in the same way France and some other nations have.

Well, this is pretty much what I mean. Point one: Pretend you don't know what is being meant. Point two: Talk about money and forget the rest. Point three: Whatever it is, other members are worse.

First, talking about money and forgetting the rest, it's the solid impression in both continental and the British press that British aristocracy (and rich landowners in general) milk EU.

However, I didn't mean money. I meant cooperativeness, compromise, political accommodation and alignment. The list of British exceptions in EU treaties, even at the most general level, was always longer than the list of exceptions of any other country, and even so Cameron spent entire last year arguing for more. Convince me that this is not a reliable measure of cooperativeness and that Britain is actually very cooperative.

Last edited by seigneur (6/26/2016 5:11 am)

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

The way the CAP works is arcane. It is essentially a complex arrangement of handouts, quotas, and supports. Britain will have sought to give their farmers a fair share, and this allows some farmers to milk it. But this is entirely different from seeing much of the EU as a way to get special consideration and support for your citizens. Britain, like Germany and many of the Northern European nations does not treat the EU in this way. Many of the Southern nations, and France supreme amongst them, do often see the EU as a means of getting handouts and support.

I agree that the CAP looks (and is) arcane and inefficient and prone to abuse, but my point here was not to judge EU, merely to point out that Britain has not been cooperating. I easily agree that there are many areas in EU not worth cooperating with, but that's a slightly different topic than whether Britain has managed to cooperate with EU. As it is, Britain has been demonstrably the least cooperative member of EU, if we go by the list of exceptions.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

It is certainly true that the British have been amongst the most hesitant to cooperate with the constant, insatiable lust of Brussels for more power and competences. We have been more cooperative than I would have liked though. But my main points here are two: 

1) I don't see this is a bad thing. I don't see why Britain should be cooperative with the plan for a European superstate.

 2) Cooperation and engagement with supergovernmentalism, the EU, and the Monnet Method are the same thing as cooperation and engagement with the continent of Europe and our neighbours. Since World War Two, Britain has shown a willing to engage with Europe.
 

Sure, except that Britain had the longest list of exceptions in EU treaties, got a failing grade at the European Council (the intergovernmental function of EU) for last year's work, and brexited this week. The actual finalisation of the divorce will take two years according to the procedures, but some implications are immediate (take a look at stock exchange indexes near you) and dire consequences concretely foreseeable. UK is a very important trade partner for some EU members while some others would be glad to impose sanctions a la Russia on you for what you just did. Further dissent, cracking, and possible implosion is inbuilt into the situation.