Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Our legal and political systems - and of course our language which is the whole basis of cultural affinity - are far closer to the US and Australia than to France or anywhere else in Europe.
I am afraid whatever you might feel it is not reality.
Mon cher Richard, and philosophers from which continent defined the concepts of reality?
Having a cultural affinity with a people does not mean that it makes sense to have an economic or political union with them. Culturally I feel very close to much of Continental Europe. It is perhaps because of that that I have grave doubts about whether a political / economic union of the type envisaged by the EU will work, certainly for Britain.
The closer you are to another country the more you realise how very different it is under the surface to the one you are coming from. I think that too much of the "well we're all really Europeans" is based on a rather superficial view based on the fact that people go on holiday to lots of places, may even have a holiday home and eat a wider range of food.
I'm glad people agree with me on the culturally closer to Europe thing.
Proof, if proof be needed (it's not), is our unbroken common European arts heritage. We share that common culture of literature (Shakespeare, Moliere, Cervantes), painting (Picasso, Cezanne, Lewis) and of course many more.
Edit: I'm sneaking Lewis in there but although I admire him greatly I'm not completely sure he deserves to be in such exalted company.
I agree.
But some of Lewis Hamilton's paintings by numbers are a bit formulaic 1 ....
we in Scotland, on both sides of the independence argument, share a wry smile when we are not falling off the park bench, spilling our Buckie, laughing.
I am continuously amused by the SNP spouting all the lines from the BetterTogether playbook, apparently with a straight face
I must admit to having a giggle when I see Nicola giving a speech or interview, spouting the reasons for remain. It must be very confusing to the cult.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
I think we are something of our own blend. In the US I can note some of our Europeaness: Social attitudes mainly, on matters of religion (or the general lack of it), guns, homosexuality (marriage), drink, and even oddly meal times where the American predilection for queuing up outside the steak house at 5.50 in the afternoon remains a source of comical wonder. However, it remains an incontrovertible fact of life that I feel more "at home" in rural New England than Paris, massively so in Melbourne compared to Helsinki, and even in India there are moments where you are sipping tea while the TV mentions a "ripping cover drive" where you think hmmm not as alien as you first think is it?
None of that for one moment means I won't continue to revel in the Loire Valley, the snowy wonders of Savoy, enjoy too much tapas, love my German car, and admire the fact the Czechs were really onto something when they discovered Pilsner.
At heart I simply want to decide things for myself through the entity I feel loyalty too, and that's not "Europe".
Good post, and illustrates the fact that we're all individuals in this. Personally I feel very much at home in Helsinki, not so much in Paris, but your feelings are I think more common. A lot of people project their personal leanings onto everyone, and e.g. assume we're all Australians at heart.
EU membership probably isn't very central to cultural preference - assuming that whatever arrangement we have still leaves it pretty easy for young people to come and go, the gradual trend towards more European influence will probably continue. But Topping is right to suggest that it's not a strong Leave argument either. Even if we have a lot more in common with say Canada than Bulgaria (as I'm sure we do), our policy-making priorities probably don't overlap much with Canadian preoccupations.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Our legal and political systems - and of course our language which is the whole basis of cultural affinity - are far closer to the US and Australia than to France or anywhere else in Europe.
I am afraid whatever you might feel it is not reality.
It's actually one of the reasons why the UK stands to gain more from the TTIP than other EU nations, we are culturally much closer to the US than France or Germany. One could walk around New York with headphones on and not be able to tell the difference between it and London at times.
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
Having a cultural affinity with a people does not mean that it makes sense to have an economic or political union with them. Culturally I feel very close to much of Continental Europe. It is perhaps because of that that I have grave doubts about whether a political / economic union of the type envisaged by the EU will work, certainly for Britain.
The closer you are to another country the more you realise how very different it is under the surface to the one you are coming from. I think that too much of the "well we're all really Europeans" is based on a rather superficial view based on the fact that people go on holiday to lots of places, may even have a holiday home and eat a wider range of food.
And I think that's true of the US as well. Having a home there, and spending time there, even in liberal Long Island, makes me realise just how different the US is to the UK. Much more so that Canada and New Zealand, for example. (I wonder, is it a function of time since independence, or the nature of the break?)
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Our legal and political systems - and of course our language which is the whole basis of cultural affinity - are far closer to the US and Australia than to France or anywhere else in Europe.
I am afraid whatever you might feel it is not reality.
It's actually one of the reasons why the UK stands to gain more from the TTIP than other EU nations, we are culturally much closer to the US than France or Germany. One could walk around New York with headphones on and not be able to tell the difference between it and London at times.
You mean the plethora of foreign languages spoken?
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
90% of Guardian readers support Remain, as do Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness, Nicola Sturgeon, Natalie Bennett and Emma Thompson.
What true Conservative would want to be on the same side as that lot?
I am struck by how many people see the EU's greatest function as a leash to restrain a Tory government.
Quite a lot of them are at the top of the Conservative Party,
Please name these people.
The PM and the Chancellor would be included.
The are the people that took the Tory Party from 198 MPs to 331 MPs. Strange way of trying to restrain a Tory government,
Either you're drunk or a spoof, or possibly both. Even your fellow Leavers will cringe at your posts.
Wouldn't the logic be as follows?
1) The Tories have a majority in the Commons. Due to the nature of FPTP, other than a few limitations of party management, the "people at the top of the Conservative party" basically have free rein to govern the country as they like until 2020 2) Either the EU imposes no limitations on their freedom of action, or it involves some limitations. Objectively there certainly appear to be some limitations; regardless, before the "renegotiation" Cameron told us plenty about how potentially negative and damaging the EU can be, so he clearly believes it restrains the UK government 3) Cameron and Osborne believe the UK is better off in the EU. Taking 1) and 2) together that means they believe that the UK is better with a Tory government restrained by the EU than with a Tory government not restrained by the EU.
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
I'm a big fan of TTIP, and I'm quite shocked how many of my fellow Leavers (I'm thinking of you Mr Tyndall) hate it.
Hmm. I might have to give you a scolding Mr Smithson Junior.
My comments on TTIP were very limited and began with the statement that I was not in a position to give a view one way or the other because I don't know enough about it. That remains the case at the moment although at some point in my copious free time I will try and get round to it.
What I said was that I understood it was causing a lot of concern on the left particularly with regard to the NHS and therefore was potentially fertile ground for Leave to try and move into areas of support that might otherwise be problematic.
I must admit I do have problems with American corporate systems and particularly with the provision of 'rights' to companies equivalent to rights given to individuals. But I have no idea how much of this infects TTIP.
I see we need to add George Shultz, Michael Blumenthal, Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Paul O'Neill, John Snow, Henry Paulson, Jr. and Timothy Geithner to the ever-lengthening list of Osborne stooges.
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Our legal and political systems - and of course our language which is the whole basis of cultural affinity - are far closer to the US and Australia than to France or anywhere else in Europe.
I am afraid whatever you might feel it is not reality.
Mon cher Richard, and philosophers from which continent defined the concepts of reality?
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Our legal and political systems - and of course our language which is the whole basis of cultural affinity - are far closer to the US and Australia than to France or anywhere else in Europe.
I am afraid whatever you might feel it is not reality.
I wonder how many people in the UK have actually even heard of people like Moliere, Delibes or Goethe - let alone read any of their works? As for the comment about US mealtimes - just try getting lunch after around 2pm in a Germanic country, or going shopping on a Saturday afternoon in much of continental Europe.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Our legal and political systems - and of course our language which is the whole basis of cultural affinity - are far closer to the US and Australia than to France or anywhere else in Europe.
I am afraid whatever you might feel it is not reality.
It's actually one of the reasons why the UK stands to gain more from the TTIP than other EU nations, we are culturally much closer to the US than France or Germany. One could walk around New York with headphones on and not be able to tell the difference between it and London at times.
You mean the plethora of foreign languages spoken?
And the distinct hatred of tourists by the locals, even domestic ones!
I'm a big fan of TTIP, and I'm quite shocked how many of my fellow Leavers (I'm thinking of you Mr Tyndall) hate it.
Hmm. I might have to give you a scolding Mr Smithson Junior.
My comments on TTIP were very limited and began with the statement that I was not in a position to give a view one way or the other because I don't know enough about it. That remains the case at the moment although at some point in my copious free time I will try and get round to it.
What I said was that I understood it was causing a lot of concern on the left particularly with regard to the NHS and therefore was potentially fertile ground for Leave to try and move into areas of support that might otherwise be problematic.
I must admit I do have problems with American corporate systems and particularly with the provision of 'rights' to companies equivalent to rights given to individuals. But I have no idea how much of this infects TTIP.
I certainly don't hate it.
I take it all back
I actually have a very long piece that I must publish on the site, about trade agreements, ISDS, non-tariff barriers and the like.
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
90% of Guardian readers support Remain, as do Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness, Nicola Sturgeon, Natalie Bennett and Emma Thompson.
What true Conservative would want to be on the same side as that lot?
raise you George Galloway, The BNP, and The EDL.
Are you referencing them as supporters of Leave or against Scottish Indy? Both of which are true of course.
Politics, like war, breeds strange bedfellows.
A bit like the UK and US being in alliance with Uncle Jo during World War II
Quite, so can we stop all this Putin and Albania nonsense please?
It insults everyone's intelligence.
On Albania, yes.
On Putin, no, if he really is trying to influence European elections.
One of his state funds allegedly offered to give a loan to the Dutch PVV, which they rejected. I wouldn't be surprised if others have been offered as well to other parties.
If you're referring to the 1066 conquest, you're wrong. How wrong? Let me count the ways: 1) It was not a French conquest, it was a Norman one. 2) The upper class changed. It wasn't a whole new people, just a new dynasty and some earls. 3) The general composition of the population (Anglo-Saxon) was unchanged, barring a few nobles. There was no mass migration. 4) England was/is comprised of native Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes and the odd Viking. Wales and Scotland are Celtic, likewise Northern Ireland.
I see we need to add George Shultz, Michael Blumenthal, Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Paul O'Neill, John Snow, Henry Paulson, Jr. and Timothy Geithner to the ever-lengthening list of Osborne stooges.
Distinguished persons every one, and not Osborne stooges. They represent the US interest in avoiding any unecessary change to established order. Fair enough. For for UK voters deciding what sort of country they want their views count for nothing either way
I'm glad people agree with me on the culturally closer to Europe thing.
Proof, if proof be needed (it's not), is our unbroken common European arts heritage. We share that common culture of literature (Shakespeare, Moliere, Cervantes), painting (Picasso, Cezanne, Lewis) and of course many more.
Happily, the Americans and the Australians (and the Indians), have forged their own cultural heritage and common cultural references (the great American novel, Aboriginal art, etc).
Edit: I'm sneaking Lewis in there but although I admire him greatly I'm not completely sure he deserves to be in such exalted company.
A culture is far more than art and music and literature. It is religion and language and law (and the attitudes underpinning law). It is politics and philosophy. There are many currents in all of these and they have flourished in Europe, the wider Continent, but they are not universally shared or understood in the same way or strong across all parts of it. The English philosophical tradition, for instance, has developed in a very particular way, very different from the French one. We may read and love Camus but he is a French writer of a type that you would not find in the UK. Ditto Orwell - but vice versa. Both part of our common European heritage. But in many respects these different European intellectual/cultural currents opposed each other and argued with each other and did not take a similar view of some pretty fundamental issues.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Our legal and political systems - and of course our language which is the whole basis of cultural affinity - are far closer to the US and Australia than to France or anywhere else in Europe.
I am afraid whatever you might feel it is not reality.
It's actually one of the reasons why the UK stands to gain more from the TTIP than other EU nations, we are culturally much closer to the US than France or Germany. One could walk around New York with headphones on and not be able to tell the difference between it and London at times.
When I am in the US it is about the only time I feel European. Culturally, I'd say it is a million miles from the UK - far more so than any of the big European countries. People see the world in a very different way. They are much more insular, for a start. New York is slightly less foreign than the rest of the US, probably because it is so full of non-Americans.
On topic, I wish sanders would quit already. He isn't going to win and the efforts of his supporters to think they have a shot still is getting a little sad. Though I suppose he's having fun.
Sanders will stay through to the convention and try and influence the platform. His next big decision is whether he dials down the rhetoric following more defeats next Tuesday in the closed primaries of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut and Delaware. Sanders has a shot at the open contest in Rhode Island but it'll be small consolation.
Good post, and illustrates the fact that we're all individuals in this. Personally I feel very much at home in Helsinki, not so much in Paris, but your feelings are I think more common. A lot of people project their personal leanings onto everyone, and e.g. assume we're all Australians at heart.
EU membership probably isn't very central to cultural preference - assuming that whatever arrangement we have still leaves it pretty easy for young people to come and go, the gradual trend towards more European influence will probably continue. But Topping is right to suggest that it's not a strong Leave argument either. Even if we have a lot more in common with say Canada than Bulgaria (as I'm sure we do), our policy-making priorities probably don't overlap much with Canadian preoccupations.
For the record it was Mr Topping who raised cultural affinity as an argument for Remain. All I did was point out that his personal views do not reflect reality.
Yes I'd agree with that. I think as a country we are almost inevitably, through reasons of language and history, somewhat more "world facing" than many other "purely" European countries. A Bulgarian cannot go to Hong Kong and have the ease of having his own language on the metro system as we can, a Finn in Kowloon is likewise probably less likely to be as familiar with Cantonese cuisine as we are. Nothing wrong with their views of course, but it all adds to a slightly different perspective, and in our case I think that perspective is quite a bit more semi detached/more connected to the rest of the world than many other members of the EU. We also, again for historic reasons, probably feel less need for the EU for the purpose of shoring up democracy or keeping foreign armies out. Hence our transactional business relationship almost completely devoid of any starry eyed appeals to the ideal of "Europe".
Having a cultural affinity with a people does not mean that it makes sense to have an economic or political union with them. Culturally I feel very close to much of Continental Europe. It is perhaps because of that that I have grave doubts about whether a political / economic union of the type envisaged by the EU will work, certainly for Britain.
The closer you are to another country the more you realise how very different it is under the surface to the one you are coming from. I think that too much of the "well we're all really Europeans" is based on a rather superficial view based on the fact that people go on holiday to lots of places, may even have a holiday home and eat a wider range of food.
I think that impression is quite individual too. I've lived on the Continent for more than half my life, and my view FWIW is that NW Europe (basically everywhere in a line north from Germany, Switzerland and France) is far more similar to Britain in political culture and economic preoccupations than most people think. There are differences - e.g. farming is far more important in France - but they are narrowing rapidly. Countries outside that line - I think your background is Italy? - are more different, but arguably getting less so.
I also think that urban people everywhere have more similarities than is generally assumed - that IS based on short visits, but to 25 countries on five continents over the last few years. There wasn't anywhere that I didn't feel comfortable in and encountered people with similar-seeming outlooks, except maybe Bogota. (I can well imagine that it's different if you go out into rural communities.)
Mr. Eagles, Henry V had a similar approach, but that didn't mean he was a Francophile.
Miss Plato, I'm not sure. It fits Ecclestone and (over the qualifying debacle) Todt.
Which reminds me, I need to rewatch the first season of The Hollow Crown, season two starts next month
The Hollow Crown's Richard II is superb I shall watch it again, in fact it's worth buying the DVD.
Hhhhmmm .... as Richard II would have said I'd rather have a red hot poker up my arse that endure that show again.
Edward II, although virtually every historian dismisses the story of death by red hot poker as a myth.
Geoffrey Le Baker's account is really quite absurd. If you wanted to kill someone secretly, death by red hot poker is about the silliest way of going about it. For one thing, it would probably not be immediately fatal. The victim would most likely take several days to die of peritonitis. He also records that Edward II screamed so loudly that the inhabitants of Berkeley knew that he was being murdered, and came out into streets to pray for him.
Yes I'd agree with that. I think as a country we are almost inevitably, through reasons of language and history, somewhat more "world facing" than many other "purely" European countries. A Bulgarian cannot go to Hong Kong and have the ease of having his own language on the metro system as we can, a Finn in Kowloon is likewise probably less likely to be as familiar with Cantonese cuisine as we are. Nothing wrong with their views of course, but it all adds to a slightly different perspective, and in our case I think that perspective is quite a bit more semi detached/more connected to the rest of the world than many other members of the EU. We also, again for historic reasons, probably feel less need for the EU for the purpose of shoring up democracy or keeping foreign armies out. Hence our transactional business relationship almost completely devoid of any starry eyed appeals to the ideal of "Europe".
By God!!! You don't mean to say the British Empire did some good for us and the world in general?
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Our legal and political systems - and of course our language which is the whole basis of cultural affinity - are far closer to the US and Australia than to France or anywhere else in Europe.
I am afraid whatever you might feel it is not reality.
It's actually one of the reasons why the UK stands to gain more from the TTIP than other EU nations, we are culturally much closer to the US than France or Germany. One could walk around New York with headphones on and not be able to tell the difference between it and London at times.
When I am in the US it is about the only time I feel European. Culturally, I'd say it is a million miles from the UK - far more so than any of the big European countries. People see the world in a very different way. They are much more insular, for a start. New York is slightly less foreign than the rest of the US, probably because it is so full of non-Americans.
I love America, but I'm feeling ever so distant from it, even before Trump's announcements.
As my American friend put it, the clearest cultural difference between The UK and The US, gun laws.
How many school shootings has America endured and nothing has changed, it took one school shooting in the UK and we changed the law pretty rapidly to ensure something like that shouldn't happen again.
I'm glad people agree with me on the culturally closer to Europe thing.
Proof, if proof be needed (it's not), is our unbroken common European arts heritage. We share that common culture of literature (Shakespeare, Moliere, Cervantes), painting (Picasso, Cezanne, Lewis) and of course many more.
Happily, the Americans and the Australians (and the Indians), have forged their own cultural heritage and common cultural references (the great American novel, Aboriginal art, etc).
Edit: I'm sneaking Lewis in there but although I admire him greatly I'm not completely sure he deserves to be in such exalted company.
A culture is far more than art and music and literature. It is religion and language and law (and the attitudes underpinning law). It is politics and philosophy. There are many currents in all of these and they have flourished in Europe, the wider Continent, but they are not universally shared or understood in the same way or strong across all parts of it. The English philosophical tradition, for instance, has developed in a very particular way, very different from the French one. We may read and love Camus but he is a French writer of a type that you would not find in the UK. Ditto Orwell - but vice versa. Both part of our common European heritage. But in many respects these different European intellectual/cultural currents opposed each other and argued with each other and did not take a similar view of some pretty fundamental issues.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Why do you need one? Scottish law is quite different from English law but both coexist within the UK.
In terms of social, cultural and political attitudes, Britain is far closer to Europe than the US.
You really exaggerate the difference, as the Treasury did recently also.
Moreover, this is a very narrow analysis. Rather a large part of the UK's international trade (over half of goods, the bulk of services trade) already occurs happily enough without the 'magic' of the EU. And this is the part that is growing fastest.
You might also be interested to know that parts of the European left are getting nervous about the proposed TTIP on the basis that some estimates suggest it will lead to a reduction (possibly quite a large one) in intra-EU trade, something that will 'damage European integration'. That gives you some idea about what EU trade deals are really all about.
I think this is what it all comes down to.
If you think the single market, as it's currently constituted, is Britain's economic future, that it should be deepened in services, not lightened, and, therefore, even having 1/28th of the say in the rules is better than none, plus you're doing well, don't want any short-term economic disruption and you're not too bothered by concepts of sovereignty or politics, then you're probably going to be for Remain.
If, however, you think the UK's future is global, that the EU will form an ever shrinking proportion of our trade, that it increasingly be dominated by the eurozone, outvoting the UK, that the limited influence we'll retain doesn't compensate for the shared powers the EU has over the UK with its permanent QMV majority, and that it makes sense for the UK to be represented on global bodies itself independently and able to control its own trade deals, that you're confident an independent UK can be just as successful as other smaller anglosphere nations, controlling both its own laws and borders, even if this causes some short term disruption to the existing economic order, but you feel it has to be done and it won't be that bad, then you're probably going to be for Leave.
I think the UK's future is global. I am just back from a week long business trip to Asia, we do more business in the US than in any other country. But I can't see how being in the EU and taking advantage of the single market prevents us as a country from maximising opportunities elsewhere too. I don't see how reducing our access ot the single market helps us do more business elsewhere.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Our legal and political systems - and of course our language which is the whole basis of cultural affinity - are far closer to the US and Australia than to France or anywhere else in Europe.
I am afraid whatever you might feel it is not reality.
It's actually one of the reasons why the UK stands to gain more from the TTIP than other EU nations, we are culturally much closer to the US than France or Germany. One could walk around New York with headphones on and not be able to tell the difference between it and London at times.
When I am in the US it is about the only time I feel European. Culturally, I'd say it is a million miles from the UK - far more so than any of the big European countries. People see the world in a very different way. They are much more insular, for a start. New York is slightly less foreign than the rest of the US, probably because it is so full of non-Americans.
I love America, but I'm feeling ever so distant from it, even before Trump's announcements.
As my American friend put it, the clearest cultural difference between The UK and The US, gun laws.
How many school shootings has America endured and nothing has changed, it took one school shooting in the UK and we changed the law pretty rapidly to ensure something like that shouldn't happen again.
Good post, and illustrates the fact that we're all individuals in this. Personally I feel very much at home in Helsinki, not so much in Paris, but your feelings are I think more common. A lot of people project their personal leanings onto everyone, and e.g. assume we're all Australians at heart.
EU membership probably isn't very central to cultural preference - assuming that whatever arrangement we have still leaves it pretty easy for young people to come and go, the gradual trend towards more European influence will probably continue. But Topping is right to suggest that it's not a strong Leave argument either. Even if we have a lot more in common with say Canada than Bulgaria (as I'm sure we do), our policy-making priorities probably don't overlap much with Canadian preoccupations.
For the record it was Mr Topping who raised cultural affinity as an argument for Remain. All I did was point out that his personal views do not reflect reality.
Er, not quite. If I may be so bold as to remind how on earth this started...a CityAM article stated:
[The Treasury Report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
To which I pointed out that:
"we'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?"
I'm glad people agree with me on the culturally closer to Europe thing.
Proof, if proof be needed (it's not), is our unbroken common European arts heritage. We share that common culture of literature (Shakespeare, Moliere, Cervantes), painting (Picasso, Cezanne, Lewis) and of course many more.
Happily, the Americans and the Australians (and the Indians), have forged their own cultural heritage and common cultural references (the great American novel, Aboriginal art, etc).
Edit: I'm sneaking Lewis in there but although I admire him greatly I'm not completely sure he deserves to be in such exalted company.
A culture is far more than art and music and literature. It is religion and language and law (and the attitudes underpinning law). It is politics and philosophy. There are many currents in all of these and they have flourished in Europe, the wider Continent, but they are not universally shared or understood in the same way or strong across all parts of it. The English philosophical tradition, for instance, has developed in a very particular way, very different from the French one. We may read and love Camus but he is a French writer of a type that you would not find in the UK. Ditto Orwell - but vice versa. Both part of our common European heritage. But in many respects these different European intellectual/cultural currents opposed each other and argued with each other and did not take a similar view of some pretty fundamental issues.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Why do you need one? Scottish law is quite different from English law but both coexist within the UK.
In terms of social, cultural and political attitudes, Britain is far closer to Europe than the US.
I'm not sure there is a European norm. Culturally, France is a very very different country to the UK. As is much of Eastern Europe or the Balkans.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
Our legal and political systems - and of course our language which is the whole basis of cultural affinity - are far closer to the US and Australia than to France or anywhere else in Europe.
I am afraid whatever you might feel it is not reality.
Mon cher Richard, and philosophers from which continent defined the concepts of reality?
It's hard to imagine the circumstances of Edward II's final year. He had been deposed as king in favour of his son but was still alive. There must have been a crisis of legitimacy for the regents.
The interviewer, Stephen Sacur was clearly pro REMAIN.
At the start I thought the Wetherspoon man, Tim Martin, was a bit slow witted, but I was wrong. He knew his LEAVE arguments surprisingly well and Sacur had to keep stopping him making a strong case for LEAVE.
Overall Tim Martin had a very refreshing attitude to a bullying interviewer and stuck to his guns despite interruptions.
I'm glad people agree with me on the culturally closer to Europe thing.
A culture is far more than art and music and literature. It is religion and language and law (and the attitudes underpinning law). It is politics and philosophy. There are many currents in all of these and they have flourished in Europe, the wider Continent, but they are not universally shared or understood in the same way or strong across all parts of it. The English philosophical tradition, for instance, has developed in a very particular way, very different from the French one. We may read and love Camus but he is a French writer of a type that you would not find in the UK. Ditto Orwell - but vice versa. Both part of our common European heritage. But in many respects these different European intellectual/cultural currents opposed each other and argued with each other and did not take a similar view of some pretty fundamental issues.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Whilst I agree with a lot of that, it's hard to see the affinity between the Germanic and Romance blocs as being any stronger than that between the UK and either. In terms of philosophy you could lump 20th century "continental" philosophy together (one of my degree modules tried to) by drawing existentialist themes that create a line from Hegel via Heidegger through to Sartre and friends but it's pretty tenuous; arguably through Wittgenstein there's more commonality between German and British thought than there is between German and French during that period. Camus wouldn't be found in the UK, or in Germany. Kierkegaard is seen as an existentialist but you'd never have been able to locate him in the French philosophical/literary tradition, and so on.
I guess the point is that the other members of the EU have plenty of differences on these kinds of matters, but it doesn't seem to be a major problem for them and I'm not sure it's persuasive either way when considering the UK's relationship with other European cultures through the EU.
[edit: actually, on re-reading your post I'm not completely sure if you were arguing for unique differences between the UK the rest of "the Continent" so apologies if I've misrepresented your views]
The German paper on TTIP posted by @runnymede earlier is very interesting. The magnitudes of the effects they show seem very large, however, and not just in the countries directly involved. For example, in the 'deep liberalization' scenario, a 7.4% drop in per-capita income in Australia, which wouldn't be a signatory. Is that plausible?
Good post, and illustrates the fact that we're all individuals in this. Personally I feel very much at home in Helsinki, not so much in Paris, but your feelings are I think more common. A lot of people project their personal leanings onto everyone, and e.g. assume we're all Australians at heart.
EU membership probably isn't very central to cultural preference - assuming that whatever arrangement we have still leaves it pretty easy for young people to come and go, the gradual trend towards more European influence will probably continue. But Topping is right to suggest that it's not a strong Leave argument either. Even if we have a lot more in common with say Canada than Bulgaria (as I'm sure we do), our policy-making priorities probably don't overlap much with Canadian preoccupations.
For the record it was Mr Topping who raised cultural affinity as an argument for Remain. All I did was point out that his personal views do not reflect reality.
I also suspect there is a difference in affinity between those who spend their holidays in Gites in France or Villas in Umbria and those who enjoy the delights of Orlando and Vegas. I'm guessing not many of the latter work at the BEEB or write for the FT.
Edit -4.3 million Brits to the US compared with 2.2m Germans and 1.8m French.
I'm glad people agree with me on the culturally closer to Europe thing.
Proof, if proof be needed (it's not), is our unbroken common European arts heritage. We share that common culture of literature (Shakespeare, Moliere, Cervantes), painting (Picasso, Cezanne, Lewis) and of course many more.
Happily, the Americans and the Australians (and the Indians), have forged their own cultural heritage and common cultural references (the great American novel, Aboriginal art, etc).
Edit: I'm sneaking Lewis in there but although I admire him greatly I'm not completely sure he deserves to be in such exalted company.
A culture is far more than art and music and literature. It is religion and language and law (and the attitudes underpinning law). It is politics and philosophy. There are many currents in all of these and they have flourished in Europe, the wider Continent, but they are not universally shared or understood in the same way or strong across all parts of it. The English philosophical tradition, for instance, has developed in a very particular way, very different from the French one. We may read and love Camus but he is a French writer of a type that you would not find in the UK. Ditto Orwell - but vice versa. Both part of our common European heritage. But in many respects these different European intellectual/cultural currents opposed each other and argued with each other and did not take a similar view of some pretty fundamental issues.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
It is indeed the legal differences which underpin the huge differences in attitudes towards the relationship between the state and the individual.
I'm glad people agree with me on the culturally closer to Europe thing.
Proof, if proof be needed (it's not), is our unbroken common European arts heritage. We share that common culture of literature (Shakespeare, Moliere, Cervantes), painting (Picasso, Cezanne, Lewis) and of course many more.
Happily, the Americans and the Australians (and the Indians), have forged their own cultural heritage and common cultural references (the great American novel, Aboriginal art, etc).
Edit: I'm sneaking Lewis in there but although I admire him greatly I'm not completely sure he deserves to be in such exalted company.
A culture is far more than art and music and literature. It is religion and language and law (and the attitudes underpinning law). It is politics and philosophy. There are many currents in all of these and they have flourished in Europe, the wider Continent, but they are not universally shared or understood in the same way or strong across all parts of it. The English philosophical tradition, for instance, has developed in a very particular way, very different from the French one. We may read and love Camus but he is a French writer of a type that you would not find in the UK. Ditto Orwell - but vice versa. Both part of our common European heritage. But in many respects these different European intellectual/cultural currents opposed each other and argued with each other and did not take a similar view of some pretty fundamental issues.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Why do you need one? Scottish law is quite different from English law but both coexist within the UK.
In terms of social, cultural and political attitudes, Britain is far closer to Europe than the US.
I'm not sure there is a European norm. Culturally, France is a very very different country to the UK. As is much of Eastern Europe or the Balkans.
I think the Dutch and Danish are closest to us culturally*, and for young people linguistically also. Next up probably Sweden and Norway. Then Germany. Definitely NOT the French.
Yes I'd agree with that. I think as a country we are almost inevitably, through reasons of language and history, somewhat more "world facing" than many other "purely" European countries. A Bulgarian cannot go to Hong Kong and have the ease of having his own language on the metro system as we can, a Finn in Kowloon is likewise probably less likely to be as familiar with Cantonese cuisine as we are. Nothing wrong with their views of course, but it all adds to a slightly different perspective, and in our case I think that perspective is quite a bit more semi detached/more connected to the rest of the world than many other members of the EU. We also, again for historic reasons, probably feel less need for the EU for the purpose of shoring up democracy or keeping foreign armies out. Hence our transactional business relationship almost completely devoid of any starry eyed appeals to the ideal of "Europe".
By God!!! You don't mean to say the British Empire did some good for us and the world in general?
I wouldn't really like to get into the debate as it all happened way before my time. As ever some good some bad, and hard to judge the 17th/18th/19th centuries from the social mores of the early 21st. What I will say is I'm not going to apologise for what my ancestors may or may not have done (most of them herding cows on the outer fringes of the British Isles from what I can glean, actually, so probably very little in my individual case) as that way lies Pandora's box ("nasty Romans landing in AD43, made a mess of Colchester they did, I want compensation from the Italian Govt"). What I will say is the Empire, though long gone, and never coming back, has given us an imprint, and connections that we cannot just gainsay because Ted Heath signed a piece of paper in 1972, anymore than the Greeks are not ( I assume), affected when they view the Parthenon, Spaniards shudder (well most) when they recall Franco, or East Germans recall the Berlin Wall. It's all part of what makes "us".
I'm glad people agree with me on the culturally closer to Europe thing.
Proof, if proof be needed (it's not), is our unbroken common European arts heritage. We share that common culture of literature (Shakespeare, Moliere, Cervantes), painting (Picasso, Cezanne, Lewis) and of course many more.
Happily, the Americans and the Australians (and the Indians), have forged their own cultural heritage and common cultural references (the great American novel, Aboriginal art, etc).
Edit: I'm sneaking Lewis in there but although I admire him greatly I'm not completely sure he deserves to be in such exalted company.
A culture is far more than art and music and literature. It is religion and language and law (and the attitudes underpinning law). It is politics and philosophy. There are many currents in all of these and they have flourished in Europe, the wider Continent, but they are not universally shared or understood in the same way or strong across all parts of it. The English philosophical tradition, for instance, has developed in a very particular way, very different from the French one. We may read and love Camus but he is a French writer of a type that you would not find in the UK. Ditto Orwell - but vice versa. Both part of our common European heritage. But in many respects these different European intellectual/cultural currents opposed each other and argued with each other and did not take a similar view of some pretty fundamental issues.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Why do you need one? Scottish law is quite different from English law but both coexist within the UK.
In terms of social, cultural and political attitudes, Britain is far closer to Europe than the US.
I think that's spot on. America is foreign in a way that Europe no longer is. But I also agree that is not an argument for Remain.
Mr. Meeks, Edward III was, at the time, effectively a prisoner of the de facto ruler of England (Sir Roger Mortimer), who had imprisoned Edward II and was having an affair with the imprisoned/deposed king's wife (Edward III's mother).
That said, some (Ian Mortimer, for one) now believe that Edward II wasn't slain as thought but escaped (well, was rescued) and lived for some years in secret.
It's hard to imagine the circumstances of Edward II's final year. He had been deposed as king in favour of his son but was still alive. There must have been a crisis of legitimacy for the regents.
who's also written a very well-regarded biography "Edward II, the Unconventional King." I'd also recommend The Greatest Traitor, by Ian Mortimer, a biography of Roger Mortimer.
Personally, if there was one time I wish I could have been a fly on the wall, it would have been during Edward III's first interview with his mother, after he'd overthrown her and Roger Mortimer. "Tell it true mother, did you murder my father, so you could bed Mortimer and make him King?"
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
27 culturally similar countries? I'll give you Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the rest are nothing like the UK.
Not France?! We *are* French for heaven's sake if you go back long enough!?
Aren't we mostly Anglo Saxon and Norman - just different versions of Scandinavians?
I'm glad people agree with me on the culturally closer to Europe thing.
Proof, if proof be needed (it's not), is our unbroken common European arts heritage. We share that common culture of literature (Shakespeare, Moliere, Cervantes), painting (Picasso, Cezanne, Lewis) and of course many more.
Happily, the Americans and the Australians (and the Indians), have forged their own cultural heritage and common cultural references (the great American novel, Aboriginal art, etc).
Edit: I'm sneaking Lewis in there but although I admire him greatly I'm not completely sure he deserves to be in such exalted company.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Why do you need one? Scottish law is quite different from English law but both coexist within the UK.
In terms of social, cultural and political attitudes, Britain is far closer to Europe than the US.
I'm not sure there is a European norm. Culturally, France is a very very different country to the UK. As is much of Eastern Europe or the Balkans.
I think the Dutch and Danish are closest to us culturally, and for young people linguistically also. Next up probably Sweden and Norway. Then Germany. Definitely NOT the French.
For the older generations for sure; but the younger ones? I am not so sure. French kids are as exposed to the internet as the rest of western Europe's young; they are even learning English these days. If there is a cultural divide, it's probably much more between the new and old EU member states.
I've never felt a spec of affinity to the French, despite years of being told how fab it is from aged 6. I've traveled there many times, and just wanted to be somewhere else. Germany or Switzerland/any Scandi is a better fit.
I'm glad people agree with me on the culturally closer to Europe thing.
Proof, if proof be needed (it's not), is our unbroken common European arts heritage. We share that common culture of literature (Shakespeare, Moliere, Cervantes), painting (Picasso, Cezanne, Lewis) and of course many more.
Happily, the Americans and the Australians (and the Indians), have forged their own cultural heritage and common cultural references (the great American novel, Aboriginal art, etc).
Edit: I'm sneaking Lewis in there but although I admire him greatly I'm not completely sure he deserves to be in such exalted company.
A culture is far more than art and music and literature. It is religion and language and law (and the attitudes underpinning law). It is politics and philosophy. There are many currents in all of these and they have flourished in Europe, the wider Continent, but they are not universally shared or understood in the same way or strong across all parts of it. The English philosophical tradition, for instance, has developed in a very particular way, very different from the French one. We may read and love Camus but he is a French writer of a type that you would not find in the UK. Ditto Orwell - but vice versa. Both part of our common European heritage. But in many respects these different European intellectual/cultural currents opposed each other and argued with each other and did not take a similar view of some pretty fundamental issues.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Why do you need one? Scottish law is quite different from English law but both coexist within the UK.
In terms of social, cultural and political attitudes, Britain is far closer to Europe than the US.
I'm not sure there is a European norm. Culturally, France is a very very different country to the UK. As is much of Eastern Europe or the Balkans.
I think the Dutch and Danish are closest to us culturally, and for young people linguistically also. Next up probably Sweden and Norway. Then Germany. Definitely NOT the French.
Mr. F, I may read that some day (already for the Sir Roger Mortimer biography). Got to say, though, that Edward II is lucky John's around to top the Worst King leaderboard.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
They are not culturally similar. When it comes to trade and finance we have far more in common with the US and Australia than we do with Poland and Portugal.
I feel much closer, culturally, to the French than I do to an American or an Aussie. Even quantitatively we have hundreds of years more in common than with the New World.
What about the Hundred Years War with France? Did Magna Carta die in vain?
Stephen Crabb is now trying to blame unemployment increases on the chance of Brexit. He is repeating Ed Miliband lines here. I suppose Crabb is similarly lightweight.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
27 culturally similar countries? I'll give you Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the rest are nothing like the UK.
Not France?! We *are* French for heaven's sake if you go back long enough!?
Aren't we mostly Anglo Saxon and Norman - just different versions of Scandinavians?
Actually I think most of us are Neolithic reindeer hunters that got cut off about 8000 years ago. Before that we are ultimately all African
I'm glad people agree with me on the culturally closer to Europe thing.
Proof, if proof be needed (it's not), is our unbroken common European arts heritage. We share that common culture of literature (Shakespeare, Moliere, Cervantes), painting (Picasso, Cezanne, Lewis) and of course many more.
Happily, the Americans and the Australians (and the Indians), have forged their own cultural heritage and common cultural references (the great American novel, Aboriginal art, etc).
Edit: I'm sneaking Lewis in there but although I admire him greatly I'm not completely sure he deserves to be in such exalted company.
A culture is far more than art and music and literature. It is religion and language and law (and the attitudes underpinning law). It is politics and philosophy. There are many currents in all of these and they have flourished in Europe, the wider Continent, but they are not universally shared or understood in the same way or strong across all parts of it. The English philosophical tradition, for instance, has developed in a very particular way, very different from the French one. We may read and love Camus but he is a French writer of a type that you would not find in the UK. Ditto Orwell - but vice versa. Both part of our common European heritage. But in many respects these different European intellectual/cultural currents opposed each other and argued with each other and did not take a similar view of some pretty fundamental issues.
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
Why do you need one? Scottish law is quite different from English law but both coexist within the UK.
In terms of social, cultural and political attitudes, Britain is far closer to Europe than the US.
I'm not sure there is a European norm. Culturally, France is a very very different country to the UK. As is much of Eastern Europe or the Balkans.
Not far off as much as there is a British norm.
In tax, education, health, welfare, firearms rights, abortion, or the legitimacy of government interfering in people's lives, I suspect that the average view in Britain comes closer to most European countries than the US. There will be exceptions - the US itself is very far from homogenous - but on a broad level I don't think it's a bad comparison.
The German paper on TTIP posted by @runnymede earlier is very interesting. The magnitudes of the effects they show seem very large, however, and not just in the countries directly involved. For example, in the 'deep liberalization' scenario, a 7.4% drop in per-capita income in Australia, which wouldn't be a signatory. Is that plausible?
You don't need to be a signatory to be affected. Read pages 28-29 to see why.
Mr. F, I may read that some day (already for the Sir Roger Mortimer biography). Got to say, though, that Edward II is lucky John's around to top the Worst King leaderboard.
John probably is the worst. By the end of his life, he hadn't just lost most of his possessions in France, he'd lost most of England too. Had William Marshall switched sides, after his death, Prince Louis Capet would have become King of England.
Richard II, Henry VI, and Henry VIII must also be contenders for the title of Worst King of England.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
27 culturally similar countries? I'll give you Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the rest are nothing like the UK.
Not France?! We *are* French for heaven's sake if you go back long enough!?
Aren't we mostly Anglo Saxon and Norman - just different versions of Scandinavians?
Actually I think most of us are Neolithic reindeer hunters that got cut off about 8000 years ago. Before that we are ultimately all African
If you're 'white', chances are there is a touch of neanderthal in there too
Humans are actually a very undiverse species compared to most iirc.
Rise in living wage unrelated to rise in unemployment?
I think that both Brexit and the Living wage will be having an effect. I remember HMG forecast 60,000 (not 160,000) job losses due to the Living wage. The unbelievable number of organisations, Prime Minsters and Presidents, coming out for remain is extraordinary with many more to come. I think it is interesting that leave cannot name one Country,including Commonwealth Counties, that have endorsed leave. I did declare for remain yesterday but have no pleasure in seeing the battle between the two sides in the conservative party. I will accept the will of the people and will support a unifying cabinet in whatever they do post 23rd June, but in the case of remain we have to make it clear that change has to come and strong alliances formed to change the organisation. Many will say that is not possible but there will never be a better time to be involved within the EU and influence decisions that will be made
The German paper on TTIP posted by @runnymede earlier is very interesting. The magnitudes of the effects they show seem very large, however, and not just in the countries directly involved. For example, in the 'deep liberalization' scenario, a 7.4% drop in per-capita income in Australia, which wouldn't be a signatory. Is that plausible?
You don't need to be a signatory to be affected. Read pages 28-29 to see why.
I understand that, it was the magnitude of the changes which surprised me. Do you think they are plausible?
Mr. F, I may read that some day (already for the Sir Roger Mortimer biography). Got to say, though, that Edward II is lucky John's around to top the Worst King leaderboard.
Yes, fancy Henry II having a son like John. I blame his mother!
Stephen Crabb is now trying to blame unemployment increases on the chance of Brexit. He is repeating Ed Miliband lines here. I suppose Crabb is similarly lightweight.
Stephen Crabb is now trying to blame unemployment increases on the chance of Brexit. He is repeating Ed Miliband lines here. I suppose Crabb is similarly lightweight.
Do you not accept that it is entirely possible and that in the event of leave there will be disturbance in the markets
Mr. T, I'm shocked that international organisations are against an international organisation being diminished, or that member states who benefit from our massive net contributions want us to remain.
The British interest is the concern that matters, not what foreign leaders think.
Mr Dancer, surely this will convince you to back Remain? I mean come on, if Bernie is backing Leave then it is a truly bad idea.
Bernie Ecclestone says Vladimir Putin should run Europe as Formula One boss backs Brexit
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
27 culturally similar countries? I'll give you Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the rest are nothing like the UK.
Not France?! We *are* French for heaven's sake if you go back long enough!?
Aren't we mostly Anglo Saxon and Norman - just different versions of Scandinavians?
Actually I think most of us are Neolithic reindeer hunters that got cut off about 8000 years ago. Before that we are ultimately all African
I think you will find that it is the Continent that got cut off!
Mr. Pulpstar, saw a Horizon edition some years ago which raised the theory that the Yellowstone supervolcano erupted and wiped out 90%+ of the human race (at an early stage) which drastically reduced genetic diversity.
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
27 culturally similar countries? I'll give you Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the rest are nothing like the UK.
Not France?! We *are* French for heaven's sake if you go back long enough!?
Aren't we mostly Anglo Saxon and Norman - just different versions of Scandinavians?
Actually I think most of us are Neolithic reindeer hunters that got cut off about 8000 years ago. Before that we are ultimately all African
If you're 'white', chances are there is a touch of neanderthal in there too
Humans are actually a very undiverse species compared to most iirc.
Yeah, I think there's a serious genetic bottleneck from about 75000 years ago when an Indonesian volcano (Tambora???) erupted and nearly took us all out across the world. Doubtless the PB brains trust will fill in the details....
His comments today about the “bogeyman” approach adopted by the Remain campaign are well timed and accurate. And it says a great deal about how little confidence the Remain camp have in their own arguments.
Why waste time on inventing imaginary and hypothetical scenarios to attack when they have the wonderful, positive, life-affirming reality of life in the EU all around them?
If the scenarios being provided by the Leave side are not credible then it's important to point that out. There are few Euro-enthusiasts on the Remain side, from what I can tell; just a lot of people who believe that we are better off in than out.
When Leave propose the future looks like Albania or Bosnia, you do have to wonder if they have joined Project Fear too...
Personally, I think Remain need to be careful that they don't mock Britain as looking just like Albania or Bosnia if it were independent, which I might find insulting if I didn't find it so funny.
But, hey, what do I know.
Whatever the intention it was a PR mistake for Leave to make the comparison. If the best comparison that they could make for where we might be headed is Albania and Bosnia they would have been better saying nothing
Leave did not say that. This is blatant spin by Remain.
.................
From the FT:-
"Britain will move outside the EU’s single market and instead join “Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and Ukraine” in a European free-trade zone if voters choose Brexit in June’s referendum, according to a vision outlined on Tuesday by Michael Gove."
Where's the "blatant spin"?
You've answered your own question; it's from the Financial Times.
Quoting from the FT to support Remain is like quoting from the Daily Express to support Leave:
OK so FT is lying as well.
Lets sort this out then - did Gove bring up Albania and Bosnia in his speech or did he not?
If we can agree that he did perhaps you can give me the "spinless" version of what point he was making.
Mr. K, Henry II deserves more censure for buggering up the succession so badly, so many times. His scheme was unworkable even while he was in charge (making it a greater failure than Diocletian's tetrarchy).
This seems strange. 'Please note that by applying for LEAVE tickets you are confirming that you expect to vote in favour of leaving the EU'. - How are they going to filter that
Stephen Crabb is now trying to blame unemployment increases on the chance of Brexit. He is repeating Ed Miliband lines here. I suppose Crabb is similarly lightweight.
Funnily enough if he'd remained Welsh Secretary he'd be on the TV here saying unemployment has gone down in Wales (which it has) and is now below the UK average. "Is he lucky?" As Napoleon used to ask. Seems not.
Mr. F, not au fait with the others. Why Henry VIII, in particular?
He squandered vast amounts of money failing to conquer France, and was a total shit to boot. Even by the standards of his time, he was viciously cruel.
Mr. F, I may read that some day (already for the Sir Roger Mortimer biography). Got to say, though, that Edward II is lucky John's around to top the Worst King leaderboard.
John probably is the worst. By the end of his life, he hadn't just lost most of his possessions in France, he'd lost most of England too. Had William Marshall switched sides, after his death, Prince Louis Capet would have become King of England.
Richard II, Henry VI, and Henry VIII must also be contenders for the title of Worst King of England.
Worst King of England - "William III" usurping them all - he has form.
This seems strange. 'Please note that by applying for LEAVE tickets you are confirming that you expect to vote in favour of leaving the EU'. - How are they going to filter that
By asking them 'Are you a fruitcake, loony or racist?'
[The Treasury report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
We'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?
27 culturally similar countries? I'll give you Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the rest are nothing like the UK.
Not France?! We *are* French for heaven's sake if you go back long enough!?
Aren't we mostly Anglo Saxon and Norman - just different versions of Scandinavians?
Actually I think most of us are Neolithic reindeer hunters that got cut off about 8000 years ago. Before that we are ultimately all African
Mr. F, not au fait with the others. Why Henry VIII, in particular?
Henry VIII, like the curates egg, was splendid for England, but left a bad odour matrimonial wise. Many of the monuments which made England great were established in his reign.
Mr. Pulpstar, saw a Horizon edition some years ago which raised the theory that the Yellowstone supervolcano erupted and wiped out 90%+ of the human race (at an early stage) which drastically reduced genetic diversity.
Lake Toba. Yellowstone hasn't errupted for over 600,000 years, which is too long ago.
Comments
The closer you are to another country the more you realise how very different it is under the surface to the one you are coming from. I think that too much of the "well we're all really Europeans" is based on a rather superficial view based on the fact that people go on holiday to lots of places, may even have a holiday home and eat a wider range of food.
But some of Lewis Hamilton's paintings by numbers are a bit formulaic 1 ....
I'll get another coat .... of emulsion ....
EU membership probably isn't very central to cultural preference - assuming that whatever arrangement we have still leaves it pretty easy for young people to come and go, the gradual trend towards more European influence will probably continue. But Topping is right to suggest that it's not a strong Leave argument either. Even if we have a lot more in common with say Canada than Bulgaria (as I'm sure we do), our policy-making priorities probably don't overlap much with Canadian preoccupations.
A bit like the UK and US being in alliance with Uncle Joe during World War II
1) The Tories have a majority in the Commons. Due to the nature of FPTP, other than a few limitations of party management, the "people at the top of the Conservative party" basically have free rein to govern the country as they like until 2020
2) Either the EU imposes no limitations on their freedom of action, or it involves some limitations. Objectively there certainly appear to be some limitations; regardless, before the "renegotiation" Cameron told us plenty about how potentially negative and damaging the EU can be, so he clearly believes it restrains the UK government
3) Cameron and Osborne believe the UK is better off in the EU. Taking 1) and 2) together that means they believe that the UK is better with a Tory government restrained by the EU than with a Tory government not restrained by the EU.
Easy.
It insults everyone's intelligence.
My comments on TTIP were very limited and began with the statement that I was not in a position to give a view one way or the other because I don't know enough about it. That remains the case at the moment although at some point in my copious free time I will try and get round to it.
What I said was that I understood it was causing a lot of concern on the left particularly with regard to the NHS and therefore was potentially fertile ground for Leave to try and move into areas of support that might otherwise be problematic.
I must admit I do have problems with American corporate systems and particularly with the provision of 'rights' to companies equivalent to rights given to individuals. But I have no idea how much of this infects TTIP.
I certainly don't hate it.
On Putin, no, if he really is trying to influence European elections.
https://twitter.com/severincarrell/status/722718738114592770
As for the comment about US mealtimes - just try getting lunch after around 2pm in a Germanic country, or going shopping on a Saturday afternoon in much of continental Europe.
I actually have a very long piece that I must publish on the site, about trade agreements, ISDS, non-tariff barriers and the like.
George gets a pasting.
No.
Unless we think we can win.
Then yes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/science/05cnd-brits.html?_r=0
We have an affinity. But that does not mean that we are the same or that we do or can agree. Look at the ideas behind inheritance laws in the UK as opposed to most of the Continent. Very different ideas about families. It's not that one is right and the other wrong. Just different. So if you're to have a common inheritance law across all countries, which view should prevail? And why should there be one common view in any case?
The rest errm won't be..
Yes I'd agree with that. I think as a country we are almost inevitably, through reasons of language and history, somewhat more "world facing" than many other "purely" European countries. A Bulgarian cannot go to Hong Kong and have the ease of having his own language on the metro system as we can, a Finn in Kowloon is likewise probably less likely to be as familiar with Cantonese cuisine as we are. Nothing wrong with their views of course, but it all adds to a slightly different perspective, and in our case I think that perspective is quite a bit more semi detached/more connected to the rest of the world than many other members of the EU. We also, again for historic reasons, probably feel less need for the EU for the purpose of shoring up democracy or keeping foreign armies out. Hence our transactional business relationship almost completely devoid of any starry eyed appeals to the ideal of "Europe".
I also think that urban people everywhere have more similarities than is generally assumed - that IS based on short visits, but to 25 countries on five continents over the last few years. There wasn't anywhere that I didn't feel comfortable in and encountered people with similar-seeming outlooks, except maybe Bogota. (I can well imagine that it's different if you go out into rural communities.)
Geoffrey Le Baker's account is really quite absurd. If you wanted to kill someone secretly, death by red hot poker is about the silliest way of going about it. For one thing, it would probably not be immediately fatal. The victim would most likely take several days to die of peritonitis. He also records that Edward II screamed so loudly that the inhabitants of Berkeley knew that he was being murdered, and came out into streets to pray for him.
As my American friend put it, the clearest cultural difference between The UK and The US, gun laws.
How many school shootings has America endured and nothing has changed, it took one school shooting in the UK and we changed the law pretty rapidly to ensure something like that shouldn't happen again.
In terms of social, cultural and political attitudes, Britain is far closer to Europe than the US.
[The Treasury Report] assumes that we do not use our newly-independent seats on global bodies to push for a more liberal global trading system.
To which I pointed out that:
"we'll just have left the EU because we couldn't get 27 culturally similar countries to do as we want and now we're going to go in and boss the rest of the world around?"
And around we go....a bientot.
Avaialable on iPlayer at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b077x4r4/hardtalk-tim-martin-chairman-and-founder-jd-wetherspoon
The interviewer, Stephen Sacur was clearly pro REMAIN.
At the start I thought the Wetherspoon man, Tim Martin, was a bit slow witted, but I was wrong. He knew his LEAVE arguments surprisingly well and Sacur had to keep stopping him making a strong case for LEAVE.
Overall Tim Martin had a very refreshing attitude to a bullying interviewer and stuck to his guns despite interruptions.
I guess the point is that the other members of the EU have plenty of differences on these kinds of matters, but it doesn't seem to be a major problem for them and I'm not sure it's persuasive either way when considering the UK's relationship with other European cultures through the EU.
[edit: actually, on re-reading your post I'm not completely sure if you were arguing for unique differences between the UK the rest of "the Continent" so apologies if I've misrepresented your views]
Edit -4.3 million Brits to the US compared with 2.2m Germans and 1.8m French.
*Swap in affinity with us if you like
Farage, Gove, Cash, IDS, Galloway and now Le Pen
That said, some (Ian Mortimer, for one) now believe that Edward II wasn't slain as thought but escaped (well, was rescued) and lived for some years in secret.
who's also written a very well-regarded biography "Edward II, the Unconventional King." I'd also recommend The Greatest Traitor, by Ian Mortimer, a biography of Roger Mortimer.
Personally, if there was one time I wish I could have been a fly on the wall, it would have been during Edward III's first interview with his mother, after he'd overthrown her and Roger Mortimer. "Tell it true mother, did you murder my father, so you could bed Mortimer and make him King?"
Is Kezia the Rubio Marco of the contest ?
In tax, education, health, welfare, firearms rights, abortion, or the legitimacy of government interfering in people's lives, I suspect that the average view in Britain comes closer to most European countries than the US. There will be exceptions - the US itself is very far from homogenous - but on a broad level I don't think it's a bad comparison.
Richard II, Henry VI, and Henry VIII must also be contenders for the title of Worst King of England.
Humans are actually a very undiverse species compared to most iirc.
I think you will find that it is the Continent that got cut off!
London Mayoral election: Green Party refuses to back either frontrunner as second choice
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayoral-election-green-party-refuses-to-back-either-frontrunner-as-second-choice-a3228656.html
Quoting from the FT to support Remain is like quoting from the Daily Express to support Leave:
OK so FT is lying as well.
Lets sort this out then - did Gove bring up Albania and Bosnia in his speech or did he not?
If we can agree that he did perhaps you can give me the "spinless" version of what point he was making.
When did the Neolithics replace the Lithics?
Go easy on the eyeliner Nicola...