I much liked your perspective today, Jack. Sorry, but it’s a big one today…
There’s a lesson for politicians who both disagree with a particular policy and likewise do not believe it will come to pass: just because it is of less importance personally, it doesn’t mean it won’t come to pass. That is the failure of Cameron & Merkel & those (ephemeral) EU “renegotiations” in the run up to 2016.
I suppose that given its history, Britain was always “sui generis” in its attitude to Europe. I don’t think Cameron cared to think in those terms. Thatcher did, but expressed herself not in the most rational of terms.
I would have thought repeating the errors of the past is not a sane proposition in a world brimming with nuclear wotsits. Which reminds me that the commentariat today refers to nuclear weapons, and their likely use, in a manner unthinkable during my grandparents’ times. So what’s going on?
It’s pause-provoking to think there must be strategists who are thinking about tightly-focused tactical nuclear usage, such that life on Earth remains, post “apocalypse”. I think that is a lunatic fallacy, if you don’t know exactly how the other side is thinking. (Harry Truman’s calculus in 1945 was relatively easy, if he actually took the final “target” decisions.)
BTW, I only just noticed a detail about Maggie’s EEC ref. jumper: she was always, let’s say, wary of Germany. I suppose it’s just a coincidence that the WG flag is not on it.
I’ll dodge the nuclear weapons if I may and say one of main main reflections is how small groups can sometimes takeover large institutions and get their way. At the same time, it also required the political genius (and I’m afraid that’s what it is) of Farage to drag the Tories along from the outside.
I disagree, somewhat. It required Cameron and his coterie, as well, to be prepared to risk sacrificing the country’s interests at the altar of his party’s interest. (That, to me, plus misplaced certainties resulting in fruitless negotiations, was key.) But thanks, as ever, for engaging with me.
Oh I certainly agree with that too. No "blue on blue" (!) Though I do think that the fact that there was a majority for Leave in June 2016 is evidence that a referendum was not, itself, illegitimate. Holding if after several years of austerity and amid an EU migrant crisis didn't help.
Thanks Jack. Most interesting. I was 24 when de Gaulle first blocked the UK from entering the common market and, like many, was mortified; then he did it again in 1967! One of his reasons was that the UK was too closely tied to the USA. Ha! As the EU debate gathered pace, I was clearly an outlier for my age group in adamantly voting to leave the EU. I remain convinced it was the right decision. The dream of unity was/is persuasive. The reality is that the human beings implementing it stumble over their egos, their politics, and their self-interest. This poisons the dream for decades. A time may come for a viable EU, but not for a century or two.
Thanks for asking, Jack. Hindsight is a wonderful gift. Yes, I think de Gaulle was right - even though, at the time, I disliked what he did. Do I accept UK's economic hit from Brexit? I feel I must. BUT hindsight can't tell us what would have happened if we'd never joined. The obsession at the time was to get in. We may not have fully considered counterarguments and the costs of being in. In any case, the dynamics have changed again. "A man cannot cross the same river twice..." etc
A century or two, Brian? I think part of the story is that in its history, Britain is of its own type (what the Romans called “sui generis”), and this informs much of the discourse.
I think that for the rational, the issue was the long term target of “ever closer….you know.”
My dad had an experience on a holiday in Athens some years before the ref which later, he though rather portentous. (All to do with overbearing EU regulations & what the EU looked like it was evolving into.) It was like the EU collectively needed to know themselves better. In other words, how much integration did people want? This chimes with Jack’s note 2.
I think I had a knee-jerk reaction when you said “a century or two.” Arguably, if Europe is in much the same form within that timeframe, it’s done well!
I much liked your perspective today, Jack. Sorry, but it’s a big one today…
There’s a lesson for politicians who both disagree with a particular policy and likewise do not believe it will come to pass: just because it is of less importance personally, it doesn’t mean it won’t come to pass. That is the failure of Cameron & Merkel & those (ephemeral) EU “renegotiations” in the run up to 2016.
I suppose that given its history, Britain was always “sui generis” in its attitude to Europe. I don’t think Cameron cared to think in those terms. Thatcher did, but expressed herself not in the most rational of terms.
I would have thought repeating the errors of the past is not a sane proposition in a world brimming with nuclear wotsits. Which reminds me that the commentariat today refers to nuclear weapons, and their likely use, in a manner unthinkable during my grandparents’ times. So what’s going on?
It’s pause-provoking to think there must be strategists who are thinking about tightly-focused tactical nuclear usage, such that life on Earth remains, post “apocalypse”. I think that is a lunatic fallacy, if you don’t know exactly how the other side is thinking. (Harry Truman’s calculus in 1945 was relatively easy, if he actually took the final “target” decisions.)
BTW, I only just noticed a detail about Maggie’s EEC ref. jumper: she was always, let’s say, wary of Germany. I suppose it’s just a coincidence that the WG flag is not on it.
I’ll dodge the nuclear weapons if I may and say one of main main reflections is how small groups can sometimes takeover large institutions and get their way. At the same time, it also required the political genius (and I’m afraid that’s what it is) of Farage to drag the Tories along from the outside.
I disagree, somewhat. It required Cameron and his coterie, as well, to be prepared to risk sacrificing the country’s interests at the altar of his party’s interest. (That, to me, plus misplaced certainties resulting in fruitless negotiations, was key.) But thanks, as ever, for engaging with me.
Oh I certainly agree with that too. No "blue on blue" (!) Though I do think that the fact that there was a majority for Leave in June 2016 is evidence that a referendum was not, itself, illegitimate. Holding if after several years of austerity and amid an EU migrant crisis didn't help.
Thanks Jack. Most interesting. I was 24 when de Gaulle first blocked the UK from entering the common market and, like many, was mortified; then he did it again in 1967! One of his reasons was that the UK was too closely tied to the USA. Ha! As the EU debate gathered pace, I was clearly an outlier for my age group in adamantly voting to leave the EU. I remain convinced it was the right decision. The dream of unity was/is persuasive. The reality is that the human beings implementing it stumble over their egos, their politics, and their self-interest. This poisons the dream for decades. A time may come for a viable EU, but not for a century or two.
What do you make of the recent ‘de Gaulle was right’ stuff? https://www.economist.com/europe/2026/02/18/that-irritating-feeling-that-france-was-right
Re the EU, do you remain unconvinced by the economic hit to Brexit?
Thanks for asking, Jack. Hindsight is a wonderful gift. Yes, I think de Gaulle was right - even though, at the time, I disliked what he did. Do I accept UK's economic hit from Brexit? I feel I must. BUT hindsight can't tell us what would have happened if we'd never joined. The obsession at the time was to get in. We may not have fully considered counterarguments and the costs of being in. In any case, the dynamics have changed again. "A man cannot cross the same river twice..." etc
A century or two, Brian? I think part of the story is that in its history, Britain is of its own type (what the Romans called “sui generis”), and this informs much of the discourse.
I think that for the rational, the issue was the long term target of “ever closer….you know.”
My dad had an experience on a holiday in Athens some years before the ref which later, he though rather portentous. (All to do with overbearing EU regulations & what the EU looked like it was evolving into.) It was like the EU collectively needed to know themselves better. In other words, how much integration did people want? This chimes with Jack’s note 2.
Yes, I stand corrected, Peter! There is no basis for assuming integration will ever happen! TBH, it hasn't even happened among EU participants yet.
I think I had a knee-jerk reaction when you said “a century or two.” Arguably, if Europe is in much the same form within that timeframe, it’s done well!