"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
I merely said that prestige comes from success rather than vice versa.
As for not following our lead, that's precisely what the EU did on supplying arms to Ukraine. I gave you the quote from the German finance minister when the invasion started...
But then we return, in this slightly circular argument..that lead was completely co-ordinated with the US from the start.
So I wouldn't describe that as the kind of more genuinely independent influence the French have shown by helping to forge naval and energy agreements across the Mediterranean, and possibly having even helped to deter Erdogan in doing that. Britain could do something similar in the North, if it wanted.
Yes, the French can genuinely independently allow the Wagner group to spread its control over large parts of Africa, and genuinely independently leave Lebanon in the lurch, and genuinely independently offend most of Eastern Europe with overtures to Putin…
Was it US/UK policy to occupy Lebanon? Come on.
We at least didn’t go and exploit them for a photo opportunity.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
The Union of 1707 came about because Scotland was near bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme and a failed attempt to colonise the Isthmus of Panama
Attempted after the English Parliament and king refused to amend the Navigation Acts, forbidding the raising of financing from outside Scotland and blocking the use of their Caribbean ports for staging/supplying - altogether a perfect storm of sabotage.
HYUFD is also confusing 'Scxotland' with the aristos. Not the same thing at all. The ordinary people were not impressed at how the posh tried ot bale themselves out of the hole their greed had got themselves into.
How do you know? They couldn't even vote at the time, nor were there opinion polls and nor did they revolt
If you knew history, you'd know that they did. They rioted and made their views known.
Didn't you see? Only opinion polls can be counted as true evidence of support!
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
The Union of 1707 came about because Scotland was near bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme and a failed attempt to colonise the Isthmus of Panama
Attempted after the English Parliament and king refused to amend the Navigation Acts, forbidding the raising of financing from outside Scotland and blocking the use of their Caribbean ports for staging/supplying - altogether a perfect storm of sabotage.
HYUFD is also confusing 'Scxotland' with the aristos. Not the same thing at all. The ordinary people were not impressed at how the posh tried ot bale themselves out of the hole their greed had got themselves into.
How do you know? They couldn't even vote at the time, nor were there opinion polls and nor did they revolt
If you knew history, you'd know that they did. They rioted and made their views known.
A few Scottish nationalists in the city centre rioting means nothing, the vast majority of Scots did not riot after the Act of Union
With rescue efforts ongoing, Ukrainians were trying to assess the longer-term damage to the region’s economy & environment. Officials & experts warned that unique ecosystems might be lost, farmland turned into desert, remaining water supplies contaminated. https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1666847975363031054
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
The Union of 1707 came about because Scotland was near bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme and a failed attempt to colonise the Isthmus of Panama
Attempted after the English Parliament and king refused to amend the Navigation Acts, forbidding the raising of financing from outside Scotland and blocking the use of their Caribbean ports for staging/supplying - altogether a perfect storm of sabotage.
HYUFD is also confusing 'Scxotland' with the aristos. Not the same thing at all. The ordinary people were not impressed at how the posh tried ot bale themselves out of the hole their greed had got themselves into.
How do you know? They couldn't even vote at the time, nor were there opinion polls and nor did they revolt
If you knew history, you'd know that they did. They rioted and made their views known.
Didn't you see? Only opinion polls can be counted as true evidence of support!
The aristos famously had to run for it and meet in a greenhouse or some sort of garsden room. Oddly enough it still exists, a little uphill from the Holyrood Parliament.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
The Union of 1707 came about because Scotland was near bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme and a failed attempt to colonise the Isthmus of Panama
Attempted after the English Parliament and king refused to amend the Navigation Acts, forbidding the raising of financing from outside Scotland and blocking the use of their Caribbean ports for staging/supplying - altogether a perfect storm of sabotage.
HYUFD is also confusing 'Scxotland' with the aristos. Not the same thing at all. The ordinary people were not impressed at how the posh tried ot bale themselves out of the hole their greed had got themselves into.
How do you know? They couldn't even vote at the time, nor were there opinion polls and nor did they revolt
If you knew history, you'd know that they did. They rioted and made their views known.
A few Scottish nationalists in the city centre rioting means nothing, the vast majority of Scots did not riot after the Act of Union
The government actually had to run for it and hide from the mob. You'll be telling me next that the Gordon Riots are not evidence of anti-Roman Catholicism in England.
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
The Admiral General of the 122nd Chairborne Anti-Chairborne Keyboard Warriors speaks…
The difference being I don’t pontificate on military strategy while encouraging policies that would send thousands of young men to a likely death, unlike the “Whatever It Takes” beardy wargamers on here.
Actually you do. Inaction is just another action.
Plus I think you have an inflated sense of the power of PB.
I've gone off that one because TB used it incessantly to try and justify Iraq.
Doing nothing was the *better* action in that case.
Though Stop The War were banging on about sanctions being genocide….
Yep and it often is. Deep strategic inaction is generally underrated. Although not on Ukraine of course. Action was (and is and will continue to be) needed there. The unprovoked aggression of Vladimir Putin should bear no fruit. Hopefully the US will not elect an isolationist GOP president. That's Putin's long term best chance imo.
January 2025 is looking a long way away for Putin now.
There's a good chance of him being driven out of Ukraine before then iyo?
I think that many figures in the Russian hierarchy are starting to think about how best to protect their position - and weaken the position of their rivals - in a post-Putin Russia. It's possible that Putin will find his time is up before Russia is completely defeated in Ukraine.
I certainly get the sense that victory in the war with Ukraine is not really everyone's greatest concern in the Russian leadership, compared with surviving the fallout from its failure.
I'm not that optimistic myself but I hope you are right. Where I am more optimistic (than most) is on Donald Trump becoming president again. Not happening imo. So if Putin is banking on that he's in trouble.
Well, I'm not that optimistic on Trump, but I hope you are right.
Far too many people prepared to ignore the tallied votes to make me comfortable, and then there was 2016 too, and the polls are frankly not great for Biden.
But between us we have an optimistic take on two of the most important issues of the next year or two, so there's that.
Exactly. Mix and match correctly and all is well. Although mix and match the other way and ... no let's not go there. These are related events to some extent of course. If you think Trump 2.0 is coming you *have* to believe Ukraine will win in the next year or so in order to be optimistic about the war. Which you do, so everything hangs together. My sense is a Dem win in 24 but the war dragging on sadly. More confident about the 1st since I trust my judgement more on that. War isn't a hot topic of mine. Find it hard to fathom.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
The Union of 1707 came about because Scotland was near bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme and a failed attempt to colonise the Isthmus of Panama
Attempted after the English Parliament and king refused to amend the Navigation Acts, forbidding the raising of financing from outside Scotland and blocking the use of their Caribbean ports for staging/supplying - altogether a perfect storm of sabotage.
HYUFD is also confusing 'Scxotland' with the aristos. Not the same thing at all. The ordinary people were not impressed at how the posh tried ot bale themselves out of the hole their greed had got themselves into.
How do you know? They couldn't even vote at the time, nor were there opinion polls and nor did they revolt
If you knew history, you'd know that they did. They rioted and made their views known.
A few Scottish nationalists in the city centre rioting means nothing, the vast majority of Scots did not riot after the Act of Union
The government actually had to run for it and hide from the mob. You'll be telling me next that the Gordon Riots are not evidence of anti-Roman Catholicism in England.
The vast majority of English people did not take part in the Gordon riots either. Countries are governed by the rule of law, not the rule of the mob. Indeed 55% of Scottish voters confirmed their love of the Union in 2014
OT. Talking about Caroline Lucas.. Last week I followed a lead........I saw an extraordinary boat in Villefranche harbour so thinking it must be a Russian oligarch who had escaped the blockade I went onto 'Vessel Finder' and discovered it had cost £350,000,000 and was the most expensive boat in the world. It was not however owned by an oligarch but by one of only five black billionaires in the world. A Jamaican banker. The site went on to say he had just sold it to a Canadian involved in Green energy........
There's obviously money in going Green. Who'd have thought!
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
Darien!
It is dangerous to simplify and decontextualise a complex history on a (mostly) single island. The history of the 'English' and the 'Scottish' bits is characterised by internal and external strife, violence and attempts at subjugation in part or in whole. This pattern also characterises most of western Europe from 400CE to 1945/1989, and the pattern has just be renewed, tragically, in eastern Europe.
Scottish forces invaded England as recently as 1745. The list of Sottish invasions of England is long, and vice versa. The list of internal strife and subjugation in Scotland is long too. And vice versa.
FWIW my own view of Great Britain is to retain it and don't spit on your good luck to have one big island without major internal violence. But if the Scots really feel differently (BTW they don't) they should act.
We're swithering
1745-6 wasn't a Scottish invasion of England but a UK-wide dynastic war - notably in Scotland.
Also a religious war with the Young Pretender picking up some support from Catholics south of the border, if rather less than he had hoped. More Scots than English on the government side at Culloden.
Genuine question, who were the most enthusiastic ethnic cleansers, thatch burners and shooters of unarmed prisoners in the aftermath of Culloden, Cumberland’s English or Scottish troops? I genuinely don’t know.
A very odd article, to my way of thinking. The author explicitly says we should be happy to be joining a broader international club of smaller mid-sized nations ready to help America.
We can still support democratic values, and America, in Europe. It's this readiness to give up a much powerful role within Europe to act as " one of many junior partners of America " that is partly what I find so odd in some of the ideology of ultra-atlanticists. Could this, in fact, spring from a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, somewhere ?
There is inevitably a tension in the EU between those who think the whole point of it is to shake off US/Anglosphere influence and those who see the point of it as anchoring themsleves within the broader West. The UK is the only European country where this tension doesn't exist because it is part of the Anglosphere by definition.
And yet the UK we come back to the fact that the UK os also one of the three major economic and military powers in Europe, always giving it disproportionate influence over a wide area, if or whenever wants it. Hence the single market, or the fact that an EU army failed for years because Britain vetoed it.
It can exercise a similar role in the European Political Community, if it wants, giving it an outsized influence as that bridge between the English-speaking world and one of the three centres of European power, or it can be happy merely to be a very junior but helpful, scurrying little butler with Pacific pretensions. It simply makes no sense not to take advantage of the disproportionate increase in influence this bridge gives, whether in the EU or the EPC.
Which we unambiguously can and are doing eg with Ukraine. We have provided more leadership than any EU nation and had other nations now follow our lead, even Germany and France have both turned towards the British led (within Europe) framework and policy.
There is no need to sacrifice our sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally in order to provide that leadership. In fact part of the way you cando that is to be a first mover while other nations aren't yet convinced that you are doing the right thing until you show them that you are.
It's a very bizarre logic to think you need to sacrifice sovereignty to some mythical European Political Community in order to show leadership or have an influence.
It's more to do with the realities of power. Britain simply doesn't have the power to act alone in Europe any more, unless solely as the US's ambassador. Hence Britain's positions on Ukraine have been helpful, but also extremely closely co-ordinated with the U.S., at every stage.
If you want genuine influence, but are not a hegemon, you generally have to pool and share power. That's just the realities of international power relationships, and will apply to the EPC as much as the EU.
Britain absolutely does have the power to act alone in Europe. Not that we need to if like minded fellow nations agree to work with us on a case by case basis.
To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.
There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty. Outside the EU countries don't do that. They work together, have alliances etc, but ultimately make their own decisions and are accountable to their own electorate.
No reason the UK should lack the self-confidence and self-esteem to do the same.
"To think otherwise is to have a distinct lack of self-confidence and self-esteem."
No - to think otherwise is realistic and takes account of the political and historical realities.
"There is no requirement at all to pool and share sovereignty."
Yes there is. A basic knowledge of British history shows that. Since the Norman Conquest, England itself has only been outside any form of Union for 150 years, from 1453 (surrender of Bordeaux) to 1603 (Union of the Crowns). Even that ignores the annexation of Wales. The UK, and previously Great Britain, and before that England, had almost never never not been part of a larger union - until Brexit.
Great Britain and then the UK (in and of themselves a union of nations that have "pooled" their sovereignties) had, for the entirely of its existence starting in 1707 and 1805 respectively, been part of larger political unions, whether the British Empire, or the EEC/EU.
We are a weak and strategically vulnerable island nation, as wiser heads than you have always recognised. To make up for that, the UK and, previously, Great Britain, always placed itself within larger political unions.
Brexiteers, in their ignorance of history, have put us in a position we have literally never been in before. Totally on our own, outside valuable political unions (the Empire has gone and we self-harmed by leaving the EU) and thus smaller than we have ever been, and with less influence without the Empire or the EU to amplify our voice.
What a load of rubbish. Those unions were effectively conquests in all but name. The Normans conqured England in 1066 and the English then tried to conquer Scotland on various occasions and eventually succeeded on 1603. Oh we might call it union but it was effectively England taking control of Scotland. Something that has become all the more apparent over the centuries.
In one way though your analogy is correct because membership of the EU was another form of conquest. One we have thankfully begun to escape.
Scotland wasn't conquered in 1603, the crowns entered personal Union. No violence was involved and they remained separate kingdoms including with separate foreign policies for another hundred years.
You could make a case it was conquered in 1651 or 1746, but not 1603.
The Union of 1707 was driven through the Scottish parliament with a not at all hidden threat of invasion. That it eventually turned out quite successful was almost an accident.
The Union of 1707 came about because Scotland was near bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme and a failed attempt to colonise the Isthmus of Panama
Attempted after the English Parliament and king refused to amend the Navigation Acts, forbidding the raising of financing from outside Scotland and blocking the use of their Caribbean ports for staging/supplying - altogether a perfect storm of sabotage.
HYUFD is also confusing 'Scxotland' with the aristos. Not the same thing at all. The ordinary people were not impressed at how the posh tried ot bale themselves out of the hole their greed had got themselves into.
How do you know? They couldn't even vote at the time, nor were there opinion polls and nor did they revolt
If you knew history, you'd know that they did. They rioted and made their views known.
A few Scottish nationalists in the city centre rioting means nothing, the vast majority of Scots did not riot after the Act of Union
The government actually had to run for it and hide from the mob. You'll be telling me next that the Gordon Riots are not evidence of anti-Roman Catholicism in England.
The vast majority of English people did not take part in the Gordon riots either. Countries are governed by the rule of law, not the rule of the mob. Indeed 55% of Scottish voters confirmed their love of the Union in 2014
What a blooming waste of time Project Fear I (the original) was if every single No voter voted out of love of the Union.
OT. Talking about Caroline Lucas.. Last week I followed a lead........I saw an extraordinary boat in Villefranche harbour so thinking it must be a Russian oligarch who had escaped the blockade I went onto 'Vessel Finder' and discovered it had cost £350,000,000 and was the most expensive boat in the world. It was not however owned by an oligarch but by one of only five black billionaires in the world. A Jamaican banker. The site went on to say he had just sold it to a Canadian involved in Green energy........
There's obviously money in going Green. Who'd have thought!
Incidentally, whilst in Southampton last week, I came across this little beauty at Ocean Village:
I don’t wish to alarm anybody but I’m now editing PB until Monday.
Heavy fighting, Ukrainian tank advances, overnight in around Orikhiv, southeast of Zaporizhzhya, and Tokmak, per local Russian official. "There is a high-intensity battle going on right now." https://twitter.com/Mike_Eckel/status/1666719504225714177
Interesting location.
I would have chosen further east, from Vuhledar towards Volnovakha and Mariupol.
Shhh, you'll trigger some PBers! How *dare* you have opinions on this war?
As Strawberry Field Marshall of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment), you’d know all about that.
I object to the implication that there's anything wrong with toy soldiers.
This thread unaccountably brings back memories of the Beano of rather a long time ago.
Comments
https://twitter.com/RabbiUkraine/status/1666780919976394754
(*from the comfort of their own armchairs)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12174591/Biden-calls-British-PM-Sunak-Mr-President-gaffe-channel-FDR-Churchill-talks.html
Team Trump, that oh-so-mature gang, has a new strategy ... focus on Ron DeSantis' penis.
I wish I were kidding.
https://twitter.com/NoahShachtman/status/1666822951218597891
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1666847975363031054
Similar, I expect.
Can we knock off the ad hom bollocks ?
There's obviously money in going Green. Who'd have thought!
https://www.nationalhistoricships.org.uk/register/2635/brave-challenger
When it was built in 1958, it was the fastest yacht in the world. IMV it looks much better than the modern ones.