The questions you brought up are interesting, of course. I'm quite a radical decentralist myself. Apart from traditional conservatism (who themselves stress the importance of the little platoons), my main area of professional study is a loose association of Human Scale and Agrarian/Distributists thinkers. I would defend both a general preference for the local and regional in politics, society, and culture as well as the nation-state (with suitable deference to locales) over larger units. But I just don't have the time to contribute to such in depth discussions here at the moment. But if others want to do so in this thread, by all means do so.

But for my purposes I will take it as given that Eurofederalism is a bad idea. After all, in the British debate the Europhiles rarely explicitly defend federalism. Indeed, they scoff at the notion the EU is moving in this direction. This is despite the immense power it already wields (more laws and regulations begin COREPER than parliament), and the fact that the explicit if low-key aim of European movement from the days of Jean Monnet onwards has been federalism: Jacques 'Up Yours' Delors, who bragged to Major he had already brought down one Prime Minister because of her hostility to Europe, once stood in the square of Maastricht and proclaimed that federalism should be the guiding principle for drawing up the Maastricht Treaty.

I would, by the way, recommend Roger Scruton as a contemporary writer who has written interesting defences of the nation-state, even in responding to global issues like global warming (he takes the position I consider most sensible - this exists and is significant but is not quite as catastrophic as some claim).

For decentralism in general, Human Scale writers such as E.F Schumacher, Leopold Kohr, Kirkpatrick Sale, and Wendell Berry are well worth reading (amongst others), as are Hayek on dispersed knowledge.

iwpoe wrote:

Oh, well in that case yes it is interesting. Does anybody know what the actual probable effect on the UK would be in the event of such an exit? Presumably you default to old trade regulations?

There may be negative consequences, but nothing too bad (leaving aside my non-mainstrean views on economics). There is only evidence for a marginal (a few percent) increase in our trade with the EU nations over our years of membership. Besides, we import more than we export to the EU, making it not in the EU's interests to engage in retaliatory trade wars. Britain has the fifth largest economy in the world. We can handle ourselves. It is hard to show many clear benefits of EU membership here or of Britain carrying much influence when opposed by power influences in the bloc (indeed, much of the process of EU regulations creation is a black box, in which it is hard to see who has the power and influence).

And, of course, if one does value national independence and identity, the relatively small disruption that might occur is a pretty paltry reason for selling out one's nation (though, of course, many Europhiles don't realise or admit this is what is involved).

I have little faith that the leave side will win. The forces against us are too strong. ​That said, familiarity with the EU and its history can only leave the unbiased observer with the conviction that the ultimate aim, slowly but inexorably pursued by the EU, is a United States of Europe. Given that, the worst sensible predictions of economic problems in leaving the EU can hardly mean anything to a patriotic Englishman who does know this history. A major recession seems a fairly paltry price to pay compared to the end of England. The problem is that not a lot actually know the history and nature of the EU. They don't even pay attention to its current powers - the vast amount of laws and regulations that originate in the COREPER or the many important areas in which there is qualified majority voting. The Europhiles in Britain do not explicitly argue for federalism. At best they make oblique comments about overcoming nationalism or parochialism. 

Of course, as the EU exports more to us than we do to it, I'm not sure that there will be a recession or retaliation against us. It would hurt the EU more than us. If there is it would rather prove the point of the leave campaign - that the EU is more about politics than economics or trade (which it is - Jean Monnet and the founding fathers of Europe wanted first and foremost to seek political union; economic union was always a mean to binding together the nations of Europe to make political union easier and more permanent). The other points are more weighty.

On Ulster, it is hard not to agree with Peter Hitchens that the Good Friday agreement was little more than a shameful surrender to IRA terrorism - with not a little of the pressure for the agreement coming the US (I always find it deeply ironic every time I see Congressman Peter King spouting off about the dangers of terrorism). In the long term, Ulster has more or less been surrendered to the Republicans. Even Belfast City Hall now only flies the Union Jack on selected days. Indeed, even the argument about the non-existence of a real border is a slap in the face to Unionists if you think about it. Anyway, times have changed. Since 9/11, IRA terrorism is not looked on quite so indulgently in the US, and this indulgence was invaluable to the Republicans during the Troubles. The IRA has disarmed. It would hard for them to take up arms in the same way. 

I am English and I think Roger Scruton is right that most Brits are first and foremost Englishman or Scots or Welshmen (or perhaps Cornishmen) before Britons. I have kinship to the other nations of Britain. But I wouldn't tie the future existence of England to them if they wish to dissolve us in a United States of Europe. After all, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me for so called Scottish or Welsh (or, indeed, Cornish) nationalists to support the EU. What is the point of leaving a British Union, one where they get increasing devolution, to tie yourself closer to a European superstate that ultimately will have less concern for subsidiarity? Even the arguments about the amount Europe has spent on the Celtic nations (funding that has to be matched by Britain and out of funds that Britain disproportionately contributes to) seems silly to me - what kind of nationalist wants to live on the handouts of other nations? If they insist on still wishing to break up the Union then so be it. It is a price I'm certainly willing to take. After all, the Union will be dissolved into the EU if we remain in the latter. 

By the way, Scotland can't technically demand a referendum. It has to go through the Westminster parliament, which won't agree to it for decades. I suppose they could try and stage an unofficial one and claim Westminster must abide by it, as the Catalonias are trying with Spain. But that is a very uncertain course (as Spanish stonewalling shows). The obvious threat from Westminster is to make the SNP live up to its previous promises to let the Shetlanders decide their own future. As most of the North Sea Oil is in Shetland waters, not Scottish, and this oil is so important to Scotland - and the Shetlanders (who are at least as Norweign as Scottish) have given some indication they'd either like to remain in Britain or be independent as Shetland over being in an independent Scotland (as independent as a soon to be EU province can be) - this will give the SNP pause for thought. They might wish to wait for a situation where they think the Westminster can't as easily dictate terms.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I have little faith that the leave side will win. The forces against us are too strong. ​That said, familiarity with the EU and its history can only leave the unbiased observer with the conviction that the ultimate aim, slowly but inexorably pursued by the EU, is a United States of Europe. Given that, the worst sensible predictions of economic problems in leaving the EU can hardly mean anything to a patriotic Englishman who does know this history. A major recession seems a fairly paltry price to pay compared to the end of England. The problem is that not a lot actually know the history and nature of the EU. They don't even pay attention to its current powers - the vast amount of laws and regulations that originate in the COREPER or the many important areas in which there is qualified majority voting. The Europhiles in Britain do not explicitly argue for federalism. At best they make oblique comments about overcoming nationalism or parochialism. 

I don't deny the Federalist goals of the EU, nor the overwhelming importance of preserving a state which has been a major world power for 900 years. Yet I imagine that this bid for independence is premature - a few more years of the status quo will likely drive the periphery into more or less open revolt against Brussels and more powerful Eurosceptic factions in France and Germany. This inevitable nationalist backlash against the European project would allow Britain a stronger hand in forcing their own secession, as well as would increase the chance of a stable British Union and economy.

Of course, as the EU exports more to us than we do to it, I'm not sure that there will be a recession or retaliation against us. It would hurt the EU more than us. If there is it would rather prove the point of the leave campaign - that the EU is more about politics than economics or trade (which it is - Jean Monnet and the founding fathers of Europe wanted first and foremost to seek political union; economic union was always a mean to binding together the nations of Europe to make political union easier and more permanent).

While the EU exports a lot to the UK, Europe also has a far larger market than the UK (especially with the pending TTIP), and thus can more easily absorb the shock. Make no mistake about it, the EU will pull all stops to make Brexit as financially catastrophic as possible, in order to dissuade the periphery and eurosceptic parties from seeking their own nations' independence. That's the game they've played with Greece, and that's the game they will play with the UK.

With regards to Ireland and Scotland I suppose you are right, although a quite intelligent Irish Republican friend of mine insists that Brexit is the path to a united Ireland - and I tend to agree with him.

Interestingly, Peter Hitchens thinks the leave have a good chance of winning. As Peter Hitchens, although a committed Eurosceptic, was a great pessimist about the likelihood of leave winning (and few can do pessimism as Hitchens can), this does mean something.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3637246/PETER-HITCHENS-British-people-risen-unleash-chaos.html 

Jeremy:

Do you think the recent assassination will change things?