by SydBarrett 42 Replies latest jw friends
Britain has always had this "part of Europe/not part of Europe" thing - actually, no, it never has had this.
Britain is part of Europe (a continent).
Britain is not part of the EU (a supra-national political entity which came into existence in the early to mid 1990s).
Please don't conflate Europe and the EU. It's a fairly common mistake.
Britain is part of Europe (a continent).
Britain is not part of the EU (a supra-national political entity which came into existence in the early to mid 1990s).
Please don't conflate Europe and the EU. It's a fairly common mistake.
The violation of Belgian neutrality provided Britain with its official excuse for entering WWI. However, would it really have kept out of that conflict had things been otherwise?
Ever since the Jameson raid on the Transvaal (1895), British relationships with Germany had been deteriorating. These were irrevocably damaged by the 2nd Boer War (1899-1902) - a war in which Germany was always on the threshold of joining in as a belligerent. Afterwards, King Edward VII (“Edward The Peacemaker”) was able to shore up relations with France. That led to the Entente Cordiale with “The Old Enemy”.
However, anti-British feeling in Germany was by then so strong that he had no success in repairing damaged relationships with Germany. By 1914 (if not earlier) there was widespread feeling in Germany that armed conflict with Britain was in fact inevitable.
Also, being then the world’s dominant naval power, it is highly unlikely that Britain would have tolerated German possession of the channel ports.
The violation of Belgian neutrality provided Britain with its official
excuse for entering WWI. However, would it really have kept out of that
conflict had things been otherwise?
Impossible to know. It would have been a more difficult sell to the British public without the violation of Belgian neutrality. If they dithered long enough before joining, it may have been just enough to tip things in France in favor of the Germans. Each month that Germany isn't blockaded helps them.
I think if France were going it alone, they collapse in 1916.
I was referring to the 'splendid isolationism' and strain of Euro-skepticism in Britain, especially after 1815 - there's still some conflation going on here, I'm afraid.
I'm not Euro-skeptic because I know that the UK is part of Europe.
I normally avoid political topics. I'm usually not that interested and I know I'm pretty ignorant but the Brexit thing is interesting because I'm living through it with all my fellow Brits.
What I want to know is, where's the benefit? Seriously, I compare my life pre and post Brexit and see no upside to leaving at all. If I've missed it please educate me.
The luxury of being an island.
It's not only that, it's probably also because of not having been occupied in WWII. Of course, that itself was in part due to Britain being an island, but it was also down to specific choices by Hitler (which, fortunately for the rest of the world, proved to be poor strategic ones) and Britain's responses to them.
Not being subject to occupation and subjugation by the enemy (on the mainland at least) as much of western Europe was, meant that the British felt little need for joining a postwar federation of states, and in turn, meant that Britons were more likely to think that being part of such a union was itself a form of subjugation. The only reason for Britain to do so was purely economic and that's how the Heath government eventually sold it to the voters - that the EEC would be good for jobs, trade and the pound in the pocket.
In reality, that was never the sole extent of the EEC/EC/EU project. It was always intended to become a much closer union, as the Treaty of Rome makes clear and subsequent treaties made that even more apparent. That disconnect between the stated aims and the way it was sold to the British voters was the foundation of that strained relationship and the strong Euro-scepticism, and as the greater aims became clearer, so did the tensions over Europe in the UK.
My personal view is that both the EU and UK are better with the UK outside the EU but being a friendly ally. The problem with the way that Brexit has unravelled so far is that the latter part - "being a friendly ally" - has not worked out yet. But hopefully, with the passage of time, cooler heads will prevail and both sides will settle into a relationship like two friendly next-door neighbours, rather than a household of squabbling flatmates.
What I want to know is, where's the benefit? - any benefits are not obvious.
There could and should be benefits, though - the UK economy is huge, and we have lots of willing trading partners - the EU, Australia, Singapore, South Korea, the US, Canada, etc.
The fact that Brexit is going poorly is down mainly to the incompetence of UK government ministers, but the sheer bloody-mindedness of EU ministers to make Britain pay for daring to leave must also be acknowledged.
Brexit was supposed to be about regaining control, i.e. Britain should be politically independent and should govern itself. Sadly, this hasn't been properly realised because we're still a member of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). This means foreign judges can still overrule legal decisions made by British ones. This, I think, is bad. We should leave ECRH.
Oh boy, leave the ECHR ? why FFS, just because you are xenophobic ? It is there to defend the Human Rights of people, based upon the Human Rights Charter we helped to write ! It sprang from the Council of Europe, which we helped to pull together, it is FA to do with the E.U.
If human rights have been breached in the U.K then I don't give a fig what nationality the Judge is who gives my Rights back !
What restraint would there be upon a Government like the Raving Right one we have now, without the ECHR ? Braverman and her ghoulish mates would just love us to leave.
why FFS, just because you are xenophobic ? - that is a ridiculous question. Do you honestly think all supporters of ECHR are xenophiles and all opposed to ECHR are xenophobes?
It is there to defend the Human Rights of people, based upon the Human Rights Charter we helped to write ! - but a universal set of human rights might not actually exist.
If you believe in universal human rights, please show evidence which supports their existence.
