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.
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.
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.
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.
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!