I don't think a new Tory leader will be keen on a GE. Unless they pick an extremist and lose a chunk of their MPs, of course, so they have no choice. What a dilemma
Yes, I bet they would love to avoid one. However it's hard to see this parliament, under any leadership, being capable of progressing any sustainable Brexit policy for any prolonged period, so I think an election is looming.
Might not happen of course - in politics, as in life generally, things don't happen far more frequently than they do - but in this case I will be surprised.
Living in the US for five years and working with people from all over the world taught me that the cultural differences between the US and the UK are vast while the cultural similarities between the UK and other northern Europeans (Irish, Scandis, Dutch, Germans and French in decreasing order of cultural distance) are pretty small. Of course the language barrier is the key reason we think we identify more with the US than with our European neighbours, but since I was working with Europeans who spoke perfect English it wasn't an issue and the cultural similarities were much more manifest. My impression is that Australia and Canada are more like us than the US is, but that was based on short visits, and both countries seemed more like the US than the UK.
I deliberately didn't say the US. I have lived in Australia, it is very much the UK with US influences and more sunshine. The UK itself now has US influences too.
You could transport Melbourne into the UK and it would not feel alien.
Apart from the Australian Rules Football, the rampant Anglophobia, the huge Vietnamese and Italian populations - yeah very British.
Anglophobia ?! Lol.
Yes what a nonsense. An Englishman is more welcome in the average Australian bar than Scottish one. That is not to underplay that Australian culture is increasingly influenced by Eastern Asia, which is a black hole on the map for most people in the UK. But you could have a common travel area with Australia (and New Zealand for that matter) and it would have a less noticable impact on social cohesion than there was even with the 2004 EU accession countries.
SNIP
I know from experience that much of Scotland is very welcoming and also that much of it is not quite as welcoming to the English. You take your chances.
Apart from a few nutters that you will get anywhere I have not seen anyone that has anything against English people. There are certainly plenty living here and majority seem happy. I am sure, just as you would in England , there are some scumbags that act otherwise but they will be hostile to most other Scots as well so being English is really secondary. That will be limited to mainly dodgy areas where I would not go myself I suspect, but I may be naive in my thinking. Certainly not a mainstream thing for sure. PS: For sure not perfect and "a few nutters" is probably far too low a count. Embarrassed if you have had poor experience whilst in Scotland, it is totally unacceptable.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
We participate in all EU law, directly or indirectly, via the Council of Ministers who the Commission reports to, so no, we are not governed by the EU. I doubt that any reputable lawyer or constitutional expert would agree with your contention.
We are not governed by Westminster either by your logic. Its odd logic.
The greatest problem with the EU is the ratchet and irreversible effect of it perverting our Parliamentary system. The EU drives a stake through the heart of the fundamental democratic principle of "no Parliament can bind its successors". A [potentially unpopular] PM/Parliament can put through a [potentially unpopular] legal change through the EU and then we have no way of reversing it.
Blair/Brown knew Lisbon was unpopular but they ratified it anyway, no successor could then undo that mess.
I want our laws governed by people we elect, who can reverse what their predecessors passed if it was wrong to pass it.
Brown was an arse of the first order
Indeed and thanks to the EU we can't reverse his actions. Not without leaving the EU.
Whether we're ruled by Westminster, Holyrood, Brussels or Strasbourg we should elect our rulers as part of a demos and be able to replace them with rulers who can reverse what bad rulers like Brown enact.
Indeed and hopefully reverse Thatcher and neo Liberalism in general after GE 2019
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Our past was European. Even a few years ago Europe made a majority of our trade. Not any more the rest of the world now takes a majority and ever growing share. We live in a globalised world and our future is global.
Our past was European. Our present is European. Our future will be European. There has not been a moment since the settlement of these islands when our future has not been intimately bound up in the continent upon which we sit and we are mad to abandon our influence in it. Our current position is like Tasmania deciding to leave Australia. It runs completely contrary to all notions of history and geography.
Our legal system has roots in Normandy and Rome. Our language is Germanic with strong French influences. Until 1534 our ultimate court of appeal was the papacy for many cases. I could go on but we have always been a European country above all else.
No our current situation is like New Zealand deciding not to be a part of Australia. Or Canada or the USA. Or Japan of China. Or plenty of other neighbours.
New Zealand is not part of Australia. Japan is not part of China. Canada is not part of the USA. Britain is, however, an intrinsic part of Europe and needs to have a say in the decisions that effect it.
New Zealand is part of Oceania, Japan is a part of Asia, Canada is a part of North America and Britain is a part of Europe.
Soon we will be able to say Britain is not a part of the European Union. The European Union is no more Europe than America is North America.
You specifically used the example of Canada joining the USA, not “North America”. No one is asking us to join France. The better example would be Canada leaving NAFTA, which would be equally insane.
As does Phillip Hammond. As does Chukka. As does Ian Blackford. We can see where the government of national unity could be formed from.
What they should do is lock the Tory and Labour front bench teams in their meeting room (called "Golgafrincham B Ark") and then convene parliament with everyone else to get a deal done
Morning all. As others have said, not much to see in the Newport result, but there is perhaps one little thing: UKIP did relatively well, implying perhaps that the meltdown we've seen at the national level won't necessarily stop people voting UKIP. That matters in the sense that the hardline Brexit vote won't automatically transfer to Nigel Farage's new gang but may be split, which could limit the future electoral impact of hardline Brexit disgruntlement.
Gotta say I think once Farages party is out in the open, Kipper support will melt away like snow off the dyke. They will have the hardcore Yaxley BNP nutters but struggle to save any deposits, they will probably only stand 50 or so candidates, there's no money in them anymore. 8% given the 'outrage' of the no deal plurality is not great in a leave seat with a recognized figure standing and both main parties struggling with Brexit
I think that at least half the votes that Farage wins by his campaigning for whatever election will be cast for UKIP rather than his new Brexit Party.
The brand image of UKIP is strong and the association between Mr Nigel UKIP Farage and the party he once led is even stronger.
Mr. Divvie, fair point. Scotland (mostly) and Ireland, as we today term them, weren't in the Roman Empire. You're quite right to point out I accidentally exaggerated Britain's European integration.
Mr. Seal, after Alfred, Edward and Aethelstan completed the conquest/foundation of what might be termed England. The 'Danish Empire' didn't last very long.
The Norman Empire never existed. William I was indeed Duke of Normandy and then became King of England, but after he died infighting between his sons led the King of England (then Henry I) to defeat the Duke of Normandy (Robert Curthose) and Normandy became the possession of England, not the other way around.
The Angevin Empire was also ruled by the man who was king of England, not whoever was Count of Anjou.
The British Isles have never been isolated from Europe but isolation and separation are different things and we have numerous and obvious distinct differences to continental Europe. (Religion, law, being apart from the Carolingians and enjoying our own medieval heyday as the Carolingian Empire was fracturing, and so on).
Apart from a few nutters that you will get anywhere I have not seen anyone that has anything against English people. There are certainly plenty living here and majority seem happy. I am sure, just as you would in England , there are some scumbags that act otherwise but they will be hostile to most other Scots as well so being English is really secondary. That will be limited to mainly dodgy areas where I would not go myself I suspect, but I may be naive in my thinking. Certainly not a mainstream thing for sure.
Of course the Scots are no more seriously anti-English than Aussies are, or than the English are anti-French (or vice-versa) or Liverpudlians are anti-Mancunians (and vice-versa) etc
It is friendly banter not hatred. Anyone who can't tell the difference is a fool.
Morning all. As others have said, not much to see in the Newport result, but there is perhaps one little thing: UKIP did relatively well, implying perhaps that the meltdown we've seen at the national level won't necessarily stop people voting UKIP. That matters in the sense that the hardline Brexit vote won't automatically transfer to Nigel Farage's new gang but may be split, which could limit the future electoral impact of hardline Brexit disgruntlement.
Yes I think that is quite a significant point. UKIP/Farage are seen as one and the same by most people and it will be hard for them to separate themselves into two different brands in the minds of the electorate. This is one of several factors weakening the electoral potency of the leave side in an early GE.
Morning all. As others have said, not much to see in the Newport result, but there is perhaps one little thing: UKIP did relatively well, implying perhaps that the meltdown we've seen at the national level won't necessarily stop people voting UKIP. That matters in the sense that the hardline Brexit vote won't automatically transfer to Nigel Farage's new gang but may be split, which could limit the future electoral impact of hardline Brexit disgruntlement.
Gotta say I think once Farages party is out in the open, Kipper support will melt away like snow off the dyke. They will have the hardcore Yaxley BNP nutters but struggle to save any deposits, they will probably only stand 50 or so candidates, there's no money in them anymore. 8% given the 'outrage' of the no deal plurality is not great in a leave seat with a recognized figure standing and both main parties struggling with Brexit
I dont think so. UKIP have the branding, and are not too bothered by being called Islamophobic. Indeed Islamophobia is quite a vote winner for them. The BNP used to get 10% or so in a number of elections, so there is always a place for an avowed racist party.
Morning all. As others have said, not much to see in the Newport result, but there is perhaps one little thing: UKIP did relatively well, implying perhaps that the meltdown we've seen at the national level won't necessarily stop people voting UKIP. That matters in the sense that the hardline Brexit vote won't automatically transfer to Nigel Farage's new gang but may be split, which could limit the future electoral impact of hardline Brexit disgruntlement.
Gotta say I think once Farages party is out in the open, Kipper support will melt away like snow off the dyke. They will have the hardcore Yaxley BNP nutters but struggle to save any deposits, they will probably only stand 50 or so candidates, there's no money in them anymore. 8% given the 'outrage' of the no deal plurality is not great in a leave seat with a recognized figure standing and both main parties struggling with Brexit
I think that at least half the votes that Farage wins by his campaigning for whatever election will be cast for UKIP rather than his new Brexit Party.
The brand image of UKIP is strong and the association between Mr Nigel UKIP Farage and the party he once led is even stronger.
I disagree but we will see. I think the Farsge brand is stronger and scrawling an X next to Brexit with clawed hands, natural
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
We participate in all EU law, directly or indirectly, via the Council of Ministers who the Commission reports to, so no, we are not governed by the EU. I doubt that any reputable lawyer or constitutional expert would agree with your contention.
We are not governed by Westminster either by your logic. Its odd logic.
The greatest problem with the EU is the ratchet and irreversible effect of it perverting our Parliamentary system. The EU drives a stake through the heart of the fundamental democratic principle of "no Parliament can bind its successors". A [potentially unpopular] PM/Parliament can put through a [potentially unpopular] legal change through the EU and then we have no way of reversing it.
Blair/Brown knew Lisbon was unpopular but they ratified it anyway, no successor could then undo that mess.
I want our laws governed by people we elect, who can reverse what their predecessors passed if it was wrong to pass it.
Brown was an arse of the first order
Indeed and thanks to the EU we can't reverse his actions. Not without leaving the EU.
Whether we're ruled by Westminster, Holyrood, Brussels or Strasbourg we should elect our rulers as part of a demos and be able to replace them with rulers who can reverse what bad rulers like Brown enact.
You specifically used the example of Canada joining the USA, not “North America”. No one is asking us to join France. The better example would be Canada leaving NAFTA, which would be equally insane.
Yes I did and the EU in this example is the USA yes. Not the continent of Europe. The EU is not Europe any more than the USA is America [the continent]. Switzerland, Norway, Croatia and many other European nations are not part of the EU.
Ultimately we should negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with the EU like Canada has with the USA. But I think you'll find that NAFTA is a world apart from the EU or even EFTA - ask how many Americans think it would be a good idea to grant totally free movement with Mexico.
Apart from a few nutters that you will get anywhere I have not seen anyone that has anything against English people. There are certainly plenty living here and majority seem happy. I am sure, just as you would in England , there are some scumbags that act otherwise but they will be hostile to most other Scots as well so being English is really secondary. That will be limited to mainly dodgy areas where I would not go myself I suspect, but I may be naive in my thinking. Certainly not a mainstream thing for sure. PS: For sure not perfect and "a few nutters" is probably far too low a count. Embarrassed if you have had poor experience whilst in Scotland, it is totally unacceptable.
I'm sure this is right. So much of the 'hostility' is banter.
However, quick anecdote, I was in Scotland a few years ago when England were playing a WC match, we got a penalty and Beckham stepped up, ran in, slipped on his arse and ballooned it miles over the bar.
The noise! The glee!
Whole neighborhood was shaking. I cannot imagine a bigger racket if 2014 had gone Yes.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Culturally, people in this country are far more interested in what goes on in other English speaking-countries than in non-English speaking countries. Films, books, plays, TV series travel between English speaking countries in a way that just doesn't happen between English and non-English speaking countries.
I've watched MANY more European tv series than Australian/NZ/Canadian ones over the last few years (probably on a par with US series), the book I'm currently reading is an English translation from French, the last exhibition I made an effort to travel to was the work of a German and afaik I've never seen a specifically Australian/NZ/Canadian play. I'd love to think I'm exceptional, but I'm not.
You aren't exceptional, but you are untypical.
Which ANZAC films, plays, books & tv series have you enjoyed in the last 3 months?
Over the past three months, the main one is Spartacus, which is a very long series, although I've also re-watched The Lord of the Rings, and the first part of The Hobbit.
I'm not sure if fantasies based on Norse myths, another loosely based on ancient European history and the accidents of their film locations are entirely indicative of a cultural broederbond.
Morning all. As others have said, not much to see in the Newport result, but there is perhaps one little thing: UKIP did relatively well, implying perhaps that the meltdown we've seen at the national level won't necessarily stop people voting UKIP. That matters in the sense that the hardline Brexit vote won't automatically transfer to Nigel Farage's new gang but may be split, which could limit the future electoral impact of hardline Brexit disgruntlement.
Gotta say I think once Farages party is out in the open, Kipper support will melt away like snow off the dyke. They will have the hardcore Yaxley BNP nutters but struggle to save any deposits, they will probably only stand 50 or so candidates, there's no money in them anymore. 8% given the 'outrage' of the no deal plurality is not great in a leave seat with a recognized figure standing and both main parties struggling with Brexit
I think that at least half the votes that Farage wins by his campaigning for whatever election will be cast for UKIP rather than his new Brexit Party.
The brand image of UKIP is strong and the association between Mr Nigel UKIP Farage and the party he once led is even stronger.
I disagree but we will see. I think the Farsge brand is stronger and scrawling an X next to Brexit with clawed hands, natural
UKIP were on the Newport West ballot paper as "UKIP Make Brexit Happen".
The fact that the common law still uses all sorts of Norman French terms shows that it owes far more to the continent than pre-Conquest jurisprudence. “Mortgage” “Plaintiff” (admittedly defunct in England since 1998), “Bailiff”, “attorney”, “ assizes”, “defendant”, “chattel”, “culprit” - all this was imported together with their corresponding legal concepts.
It is the nature of language that new words are adopted without changing the underlying roots. As I mentioned earlier we use a mongrel vocabulary bit with a Brythonic structure. The fact that we use many Indian words does not mean we are a sub-continental nation. It just illustrates some cultural affinities. Others are far stronger.
Morning all. As others have said, not much to see in the Newport result, but there is perhaps one little thing: UKIP did relatively well, implying perhaps that the meltdown we've seen at the national level won't necessarily stop people voting UKIP. That matters in the sense that the hardline Brexit vote won't automatically transfer to Nigel Farage's new gang but may be split, which could limit the future electoral impact of hardline Brexit disgruntlement.
Gotta say I think once Farages party is out in the open, Kipper support will melt away like snow off the dyke. They will have the hardcore Yaxley BNP nutters but struggle to save any deposits, they will probably only stand 50 or so candidates, there's no money in them anymore. 8% given the 'outrage' of the no deal plurality is not great in a leave seat with a recognized figure standing and both main parties struggling with Brexit
I dont think so. UKIP have the branding, and are not too bothered by being called Islamophobic. Indeed Islamophobia is quite a vote winner for them. The BNP used to get 10% or so in a number of elections, so there is always a place for an avowed racist party.
Can they afford to stand and campaign nationally in euros and a GE? Have they any serious backers? Helmer quit Tuesday, they are out of recognisible figures apart from Yaxley, and he will drop them when he finds something else to piss about with
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
We participate in all EU law, directly or indirectly, via the Council of Ministers who the Commission reports to, so no, we are not governed by the EU. I doubt that any reputable lawyer or constitutional expert would agree with your contention.
We are not governed by Westminster either by your logic. Its odd logic.
The greatest problem with the EU is the ratchet and irreversible effect of it perverting our Parliamentary system. The EU drives a stake through the heart of the fundamental democratic principle of "no Parliament can bind its successors". A [potentially unpopular] PM/Parliament can put through a [potentially unpopular] legal change through the EU and then we have no way of reversing it.
Blair/Brown knew Lisbon was unpopular but they ratified it anyway, no successor could then undo that mess.
I want our laws governed by people we elect, who can reverse what their predecessors passed if it was wrong to pass it.
Brown was an arse of the first order
Indeed and thanks to the EU we can't reverse his actions. Not without leaving the EU.
Whether we're ruled by Westminster, Holyrood, Brussels or Strasbourg we should elect our rulers as part of a demos and be able to replace them with rulers who can reverse what bad rulers like Brown enact.
I'm sure this is right. So much of the 'hostility' is banter.
However, quick anecdote, I was in Scotland a few years ago when England were playing a WC match, we got a penalty and Beckham stepped up, ran in, slipped on his arse and ballooned it miles over the bar.
The noise! The glee!
Whole neighborhood was shaking. I cannot imagine a bigger racket if 2014 had gone Yes.
Football is another matter, it is special case for 90 minutes, or 150 minutes as England always end up with extra time and penalties.
As does Phillip Hammond. As does Chukka. As does Ian Blackford. We can see where the government of national unity could be formed from.
What they should do is lock the Tory and Labour front bench teams in their meeting room (called "Golgafrincham B Ark") and then convene parliament with everyone else to get a deal done
Living in the US for five years and working with people
I deliberately didn't say the US. I have lived in Australia, it is very much the UK with US influences and more sunshine. The UK itself now has US influences too.
You could transport Melbourne into the UK and it would not feel alien.
Apart from the Australian Rules Football, the rampant Anglophobia, the huge Vietnamese and Italian populations - yeah very British.
Anglophobia ?! Lol.
Yes what a nonsense. An Englishman is more welcome in the average Australian bar than Scottish one. That is not to underplay that Australian culture is increasingly influenced by Eastern Asia, which is a black hole on the map for most people in the UK. But you could have a common travel area with Australia (and New Zealand for that matter) and it would have a less noticable impact on social cohesion than there was even with the 2004 EU accession countries.
SNIP
I know from experience that much of Scotland is very welcoming and also that much of it is not quite as welcoming to the English. You take your chances.
Apart from a few nutters that you will get anywhere I have not seen anyone that has anything against English people. There are certainly plenty living here and majority seem happy. I am sure, just as you would in England , there are some scumbags that act otherwise but they will be hostile to most other Scots as well so being English is really secondary. That will be limited to mainly dodgy areas where I would not go myself I suspect, but I may be naive in my thinking. Certainly not a mainstream thing for sure. PS: For sure not perfect and "a few nutters" is probably far too low a count. Embarrassed if you have had poor experience whilst in Scotland, it is totally unacceptable.
Having the closest of connections with Scotland by marrying a Northern Scot and living in Edinburgh for some years, this part Welsh part Englishman and conservative member can say with absolute certainty the Scots are warm, generous in spirit if careful with their 'bawbees' and it is very much a very small number who may demonstrate an anti English bias
Malc and I have an excellent discourse on here and we are different politically.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
Apart from a few nutters that you will get anywhere I have not seen anyone that has anything against English people. There are certainly plenty living here and majority seem happy. I am sure, just as you would in England , there are some scumbags that act otherwise but they will be hostile to most other Scots as well so being English is really secondary. That will be limited to mainly dodgy areas where I would not go myself I suspect, but I may be naive in my thinking. Certainly not a mainstream thing for sure. PS: For sure not perfect and "a few nutters" is probably far too low a count. Embarrassed if you have had poor experience whilst in Scotland, it is totally unacceptable.
I'm sure this is right. So much of the 'hostility' is banter.
However, quick anecdote, I was in Scotland a few years ago when England were playing a WC match, we got a penalty and Beckham stepped up, ran in, slipped on his arse and ballooned it miles over the bar.
The noise! The glee!
Whole neighborhood was shaking. I cannot imagine a bigger racket if 2014 had gone Yes.
Go to a pub in Liverpool and see a Manchester United player like David Beckham years ago do the same thing and listen to the reaction.
Doesn't mean they really hate each other.
Go to Glasgow and a pub full of Rangers fans and see a Celtic player do it, you'd get the same reaction.
Doesn't mean a Glaswegian really hates his fellow Glaswegians who support Celtic.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
The angles and saxons were invited, several decades after Roman evacuation and the tide did not turn against the British until 150 to 200 years after the Romans left.
Actually the Angles and Saxons were in Britain probably at least 100 years before the Roman withdrawal. You are right that the idea of Anglo-Saxon Invasions is basically a myth but the movement of Germanic people's into Britain started much earlier and was far more gradual than the accounts given in "1066 and All That"
Morning all. As others have said, not much to see in the Newport result, but there is perhaps one little thing: UKIP did relatively well, implying perhaps that the meltdown we've seen at the national level won't necessarily stop people voting UKIP. That matters in the sense that the hardline Brexit vote won't automatically transfer to Nigel Farage's new gang but may be split, which could limit the future electoral impact of hardline Brexit disgruntlement.
Gotta say I think once Farages party is out in the open, Kipper support will melt away like snow off the dyke. They will have the hardcore Yaxley BNP nutters but struggle to save any deposits, they will probably only stand 50 or so candidates, there's no money in them anymore. 8% given the 'outrage' of the no deal plurality is not great in a leave seat with a recognized figure standing and both main parties struggling with Brexit
I think that at least half the votes that Farage wins by his campaigning for whatever election will be cast for UKIP rather than his new Brexit Party.
The brand image of UKIP is strong and the association between Mr Nigel UKIP Farage and the party he once led is even stronger.
I disagree but we will see. I think the Farsge brand is stronger and scrawling an X next to Brexit with clawed hands, natural
UKIP were on the Newport West ballot paper as "UKIP Make Brexit Happen".
Makes their performance even more useless in a Brexit riven nation. I'm not expecting the Brexit party go romp outside the euros but a simple 'Brexit' with Farage branding trumps the kippers imo
Morning all. As others have said, not much to see in the Newport result, but there is perhaps one little thing: UKIP did relatively well, implying perhaps that the meltdown we've seen at the national level won't necessarily stop people voting UKIP. That matters in the sense that the hardline Brexit vote won't automatically transfer to Nigel Farage's new gang but may be split, which could limit the future electoral impact of hardline Brexit disgruntlement.
Yes I think that is quite a significant point. UKIP/Farage are seen as one and the same by most people and it will be hard for them to separate themselves into two different brands in the minds of the electorate. This is one of several factors weakening the electoral potency of the leave side in an early GE.
The bottom line is that a GE under our voting system is the worst possible way to settle an issue like Brexit.
People could vote for parties with clear positions in their droves - LibDem/TIG/Green to stop Brexit or UKIP/BXT for a hard Brexit - and have their votes rendered mostly worthless, while we see one of the main parties walk into majority power on a third of the vote. With people voting for those main parties having to do a lot of research on their local candidate to discover what exactly are their views on Brexit, with pot luck as to what they are being offered in their constituency, which could be anything from hard Brexit to hard Remain.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
Really? Without wishing to get all Dan Hannan about this my Oxford degree in history led to a successful law conversion, an LLM and a job as a partner in a City law firm. I don’t think I’m in huge amounts of trouble TBF. Unlike you self who appears to put a lot of effort in but knows the square of sod all about anything.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
I though the Anglo-Saxon was more of a migration than an invasion. The genetic analysis suggests a lot of cohabitation and surviving British settlements in “Saxon areas”
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
When it comes to law, quite often, different peoples can come to similar conclusions. Some parts of Roman Law have similarities with English Law, but they are still different systems.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
The angles and saxons were invited, several decades after Roman evacuation and the tide did not turn against the British until 150 to 200 years after the Romans left.
Actually the Angles and Saxons were in Britain probably at least 100 years before the Roman withdrawal. You are right that the idea of Anglo-Saxon Invasions is basically a myth but the movement of Germanic people's into Britain started much earlier and was far more gradual than the accounts given in "1066 and All That"
Morning all. As others have said, not much to see in the Newport result, but there is perhaps one little thing: UKIP did relatively well, implying perhaps that the meltdown we've seen at the national level won't necessarily stop people voting UKIP. That matters in the sense that the hardline Brexit vote won't automatically transfer to Nigel Farage's new gang but may be split, which could limit the future electoral impact of hardline Brexit disgruntlement.
Yes I think that is quite a significant point. UKIP/Farage are seen as one and the same by most people and it will be hard for them to separate themselves into two different brands in the minds of the electorate. This is one of several factors weakening the electoral potency of the leave side in an early GE.
The bottom line is that a GE under our voting system is the worst possible way to settle an issue like Brexit.
People could vote for parties with clear positions in their droves - LibDem/TIG/Green to stop Brexit or UKIP/BXT for a hard Brexit - and have their votes rendered mostly worthless, while we see one of the main parties walk into majority power on a third of the vote. With people voting for those main parties having to do a lot of research on their local candidate to discover what exactly are their views on Brexit, with pot luck as to what they are being offered in their constituency, which could be anything from hard Brexit to hard Remain.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Our past was European. Even a few years ago Europe made a majority of our trade. Not any more the rest of the world now takes a majority and ever growing share. We live in a globalised world and our future is global.
Our geography.
Our legal system has roots in Normandy and Rome. Our language is Germanic with strong French influences. Until 1534 our ultimate court of appeal was the papacy for many cases. I could go on but we have always been a European country above all else.
Thanks to Bishop Odo, brother of William the Conqueror, our legal system continues to have its roots in Anglo-Saxon common law. At least in England. Our language uses Germanic, Scandinavian and Norman vocabulary but Brythonic structure. And 1534 was of course notable for a definitive break with Europe in terms of both politics and religion.
The fact that the common law still uses all sorts of Norman French terms shows that it owes far more to the continent than pre-Conquest jurisprudence. “Mortgage” “Plaintiff” (admittedly defunct in England since 1998), “Bailiff”, “attorney”, “ assizes”, “defendant”, “chattel”, “culprit” - all this was imported together with their corresponding legal concepts.
It's worth remembering that civil law has its roots in the French revolution and the Napoleonic code, and so is actually much younger than the common law. The terms imported as a result of the Norman conquest don't really tell us much except that the Normans controlled the legal system after they took over England.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Our past was European. Even a few years ago Europe made a majority of our trade. Not any more the rest of the world now takes a majority and ever growing share. We live in a globalised world and our future is global.
Our geography.
Our legal system has roots in Normandy and Rome. Our language is Germanic with strong French influences. Until 1534 our ultimate court of appeal was the papacy for many cases. I could go on but we have always been a European country above all else.
Thanks to Bishop Odo, brother of William the Conqueror, our legal system continues to have its roots in Anglo-Saxon common law. At least in England. Our language uses Germanic, Scandinavian and Norman vocabulary but Brythonic structure. And 1534 was of course notable for a definitive break with Europe in terms of both politics and religion.
The fact that the common law still uses all sorts of Norman French terms shows that it owes far more to the continent than pre-Conquest jurisprudence. “Mortgage” “Plaintiff” (admittedly defunct in England since 1998), “Bailiff”, “attorney”, “ assizes”, “defendant”, “chattel”, “culprit” - all this was imported together with their corresponding legal concepts.
It's worth remembering that civil law has its roots in the French revolution and the Napoleonic code, and so is actually much younger than the common law. The terms imported as a result of the Norman conquest don't really tell us much except that the Normans controlled the legal system after they took over England.
Indeed the post-Revolution French departed from Norman traditions that we kept.
Apart from a few nutters that you will get anywhere I have not seen anyone that has anything against English people. There are certainly plenty living here and majority seem happy. I am sure, just as you would in England , there are some scumbags that act otherwise but they will be hostile to most other Scots as well so being English is really secondary. That will be limited to mainly dodgy areas where I would not go myself I suspect, but I may be naive in my thinking. Certainly not a mainstream thing for sure. PS: For sure not perfect and "a few nutters" is probably far too low a count. Embarrassed if you have had poor experience whilst in Scotland, it is totally unacceptable.
I'm sure this is right. So much of the 'hostility' is banter.
However, quick anecdote, I was in Scotland a few years ago when England were playing a WC match, we got a penalty and Beckham stepped up, ran in, slipped on his arse and ballooned it miles over the bar.
The noise! The glee!
Whole neighborhood was shaking. I cannot imagine a bigger racket if 2014 had gone Yes.
Go to a pub in Liverpool and see a Manchester United player like David Beckham years ago do the same thing and listen to the reaction.
Doesn't mean they really hate each other.
Go to Glasgow and a pub full of Rangers fans and see a Celtic player do it, you'd get the same reaction.
Doesn't mean a Glaswegian really hates his fellow Glaswegians who support Celtic.
Mr. Divvie, fair point. Scotland (mostly) and Ireland, as we today term them, weren't in the Roman Empire. You're quite right to point out I accidentally exaggerated Britain's European integration.
Mr. Seal, after Alfred, Edward and Aethelstan completed the conquest/foundation of what might be termed England. The 'Danish Empire' didn't last very long.
The Norman Empire never existed. William I was indeed Duke of Normandy and then became King of England, but after he died infighting between his sons led the King of England (then Henry I) to defeat the Duke of Normandy (Robert Curthose) and Normandy became the possession of England, not the other way around.
The Angevin Empire was also ruled by the man who was king of England, not whoever was Count of Anjou.
The British Isles have never been isolated from Europe but isolation and separation are different things and we have numerous and obvious distinct differences to continental Europe. (Religion, law, being apart from the Carolingians and enjoying our own medieval heyday as the Carolingian Empire was fracturing, and so on).
The concept of a nation (defined as a people of common ehnicity and culture) is a relatively recent one. During the times we are discussing realms were often multicultural and held together by more personal ideas of loyalty and sovereignty. It didnt particularly matter if the King couldn't speak English, or if Fredrick the Great of Prussia spoke French at court. Nobles married internationally by class culture rather than national culture, and peasants were peasants everywhere without literacy or any conception of nation.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Culturally, people in this country are far more interested in what goes on in other English speaking-countries than in non-English speaking countries. Films, books, plays, TV series travel between English speaking countries in a way that just doesn't happen between English and non-English speaking countries.
I've watched MANY more European tv series than Australian/NZ/Canadian ones over the last few years (probably on a par with US series), the book I'm currently reading is an English translation from French, the last exhibition I made an effort to travel to was the work of a German and afaik I've never seen a specifically Australian/NZ/Canadian play. I'd love to think I'm exceptional, but I'm not.
You aren't exceptional, but you are untypical.
Which ANZAC films, plays, books & tv series have you enjoyed in the last 3 months?
Over the past three months, the main one is Spartacus, which is a very long series, although I've also re-watched The Lord of the Rings, and the first part of The Hobbit.
Harking back to LOR kind of makes the point though. Whereas there is tons of great European Tv around, The Bureau, Spiral, The Bridge, Deutschland 83, Wallender, etc.
Apart from a few nutters that you will get anywhere I have not seen anyone that has anything against English people. There are certainly plenty living here and majority seem happy. I am sure, just as you would in England , there are some scumbags that act otherwise but they will be hostile to most other Scots as well so being English is really secondary. That will be limited to mainly dodgy areas where I would not go myself I suspect, but I may be naive in my thinking. Certainly not a mainstream thing for sure. PS: For sure not perfect and "a few nutters" is probably far too low a count. Embarrassed if you have had poor experience whilst in Scotland, it is totally unacceptable.
I'm sure this is right. So much of the 'hostility' is banter.
However, quick anecdote, I was in Scotland a few years ago when England were playing a WC match, we got a penalty and Beckham stepped up, ran in, slipped on his arse and ballooned it miles over the bar.
The noise! The glee!
Whole neighborhood was shaking. I cannot imagine a bigger racket if 2014 had gone Yes.
Go to a pub in Liverpool and see a Manchester United player like David Beckham years ago do the same thing and listen to the reaction.
Doesn't mean they really hate each other.
Go to Glasgow and a pub full of Rangers fans and see a Celtic player do it, you'd get the same reaction.
Doesn't mean a Glaswegian really hates his fellow Glaswegians who support Celtic.
You sure about that? Really sure?
A Rangers fan may "hate" Celtic, but he doesn't hate the Glaswegians who support Celtic yes. A Liverpool fan may "hate" Man Utd but he doesn't hate the Mancs who support Man Utd yes.
As a Liverpool fan I can go to a pub with a Man Utd fan as friends, cheer opposing sides and love it if the opposing sides screw up for 90 minutes, but at the end of it we're still friends. I know its the only code phrase for racists but "some of my best friends are Man Utd fans".
Apart from a few nutters that you will get anywhere I have not seen anyone that has anything against English people. There are certainly plenty living here and majority seem happy. I am sure, just as you would in England , there are some scumbags that act otherwise but they will be hostile to most other Scots as well so being English is really secondary. That will be limited to mainly dodgy areas where I would not go myself I suspect, but I may be naive in my thinking. Certainly not a mainstream thing for sure. PS: For sure not perfect and "a few nutters" is probably far too low a count. Embarrassed if you have had poor experience whilst in Scotland, it is totally unacceptable.
I'm sure this is right. So much of the 'hostility' is banter.
However, quick anecdote, I was in Scotland a few years ago when England were playing a WC match, we got a penalty and Beckham stepped up, ran in, slipped on his arse and ballooned it miles over the bar.
The noise! The glee!
Whole neighborhood was shaking. I cannot imagine a bigger racket if 2014 had gone Yes.
Go to a pub in Liverpool and see a Manchester United player like David Beckham years ago do the same thing and listen to the reaction.
Doesn't mean they really hate each other.
Go to Glasgow and a pub full of Rangers fans and see a Celtic player do it, you'd get the same reaction.
Doesn't mean a Glaswegian really hates his fellow Glaswegians who support Celtic.
Actually, I'd disagree on the Rangers-Celtic thing. It was always pretty feisty with a tendency to sectarian crap, but I think something toxic has entered into that particular rivalry recently. I saw the clip below on twitter a couple of days ago, impossible to think of it happening nowadays.
Dr. Foxy, yet the idea of England goes back, at least, to Alfred the Great, if not the Angles.
Mr. Charles, it's an interesting question. I'd go for invasion leading to settlement, but you're right that there was a lot of cohabiting. But the top dogs got the jobs by right of conquest.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
The angles and saxons were invited, several decades after Roman evacuation and the tide did not turn against the British until 150 to 200 years after the Romans left.
Actually the Angles and Saxons were in Britain probably at least 100 years before the Roman withdrawal. You are right that the idea of Anglo-Saxon Invasions is basically a myth but the movement of Germanic people's into Britain started much earlier and was far more gradual than the accounts given in "1066 and All That"
The fact that the common law still uses all sorts of Norman French terms shows that it owes far more to the continent than pre-Conquest jurisprudence. “Mortgage” “Plaintiff” (admittedly defunct in England since 1998), “Bailiff”, “attorney”, “ assizes”, “defendant”, “chattel”, “culprit” - all this was imported together with their corresponding legal concepts.
It is the nature of language that new words are adopted without changing the underlying roots. As I mentioned earlier we use a mongrel vocabulary bit with a Brythonic structure. The fact that we use many Indian words does not mean we are a sub-continental nation. It just illustrates some cultural affinities. Others are far stronger.
As I said, many of those words (admittedly not all). denote concepts introduced from continental legal systems, not the Anglo-Saxon. Property law in England is essentially feudal in origin, brought with the Co quest, and most early common law judges had to be conversant with canon law from Rome - from there comes much of our probate law.
The continued speculation about changing the "Brexit date" by a few weeks and the threat of no deal in one week is good for no European economy and frankly an absurd way to do politics. The 2 year notice that comes with Article 50 was sensible, but we are where we are now, and another approach is needed.
A formal brexit date should now be withdrawn, but the negotiations votes etc carry on. Once the EU and the UK have agreed the withdrawal plan, then a two month notice is given with a definite date and known leaving conditions. This would allow comanpies and citizens to make realistic plans without having to hav 3 short term contingency plans.
Anyone who objects, saying that then Brexit will never happen, i reply "if the political will for Brexit is there then it will happen and Brexit is so big, we need to get it right, not rushed through in a few days just to meet a deadline"
That is effectively what will happen if the EU grants a long "flextension" as suggested in the media this morning. However the chances of the UK parliament agreeing on a deal are pretty slim, so the effect of a long extension will be to keep the UK in the EU indefinitely, or until the EU decides to throw us out (which they might do if we adopt the Rees Mogg bad behaviour strategy).
If we agree an indefinite extension, then they can't throw us out.
(Am I right in that? It seems weird but technically correct)
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
I though the Anglo-Saxon was more of a migration than an invasion. The genetic analysis suggests a lot of cohabitation and surviving British settlements in “Saxon areas”
More a cultural movement than a physical one, with indigenous Britons adopting Saxon language and culture. The evidence of genetics is that numbers coming over were relatively minor from Germany and Scandinavia.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
The angles and saxons were invited, several decades after Roman evacuation and the tide did not turn against the British until 150 to 200 years after the Romans left.
Actually the Angles and Saxons were in Britain probably at least 100 years before the Roman withdrawal. You are right that the idea of Anglo-Saxon Invasions is basically a myth but the movement of Germanic people's into Britain started much earlier and was far more gradual than the accounts given in "1066 and All That"
The fact that the common law still uses all sorts of Norman French terms shows that it owes far more to the continent than pre-Conquest jurisprudence. “Mortgage” “Plaintiff” (admittedly defunct in England since 1998), “Bailiff”, “attorney”, “ assizes”, “defendant”, “chattel”, “culprit” - all this was imported together with their corresponding legal concepts.
It is the nature of language that new words are adopted without changing the underlying roots. As I mentioned earlier we use a mongrel vocabulary bit with a Brythonic structure. The fact that we use many Indian words does not mean we are a sub-continental nation. It just illustrates some cultural affinities. Others are far stronger.
As I said, many of those words (admittedly not all). denote concepts introduced from continental legal systems, not the Anglo-Saxon. Property law in England is essentially feudal in origin, brought with the Co quest, and most early common law judges had to be conversant with canon law from Rome - from there comes much of our probate law.
Indeed and to bring the discussion back full circle we carried that Common Law with us across the Commonwealth while the continental Europeans turned their back on it and moved to the Napoleonic Code.
Looks like UKIP raised 13,000 on the EC list for the last quarter from 4 donors. The idea they are in any shape to fight more than a few dozen seats is just wrong unless they can get a big backer in
The continued speculation about changing the "Brexit date" by a few weeks and the threat of no deal in one week is good for no European economy and frankly an absurd way to do politics. The 2 year notice that comes with Article 50 was sensible, but we are where we are now, and another approach is needed.
A formal brexit date should now be withdrawn, but the negotiations votes etc carry on. Once the EU and the UK have agreed the withdrawal plan, then a two month notice is given with a definite date and known leaving conditions. This would allow comanpies and citizens to make realistic plans without having to hav 3 short term contingency plans.
Anyone who objects, saying that then Brexit will never happen, i reply "if the political will for Brexit is there then it will happen and Brexit is so big, we need to get it right, not rushed through in a few days just to meet a deadline"
That is effectively what will happen if the EU grants a long "flextension" as suggested in the media this morning. However the chances of the UK parliament agreeing on a deal are pretty slim, so the effect of a long extension will be to keep the UK in the EU indefinitely, or until the EU decides to throw us out (which they might do if we adopt the Rees Mogg bad behaviour strategy).
If we agree an indefinite extension, then they can't throw us out.
(Am I right in that? It seems weird but technically correct)
They'll never agree an indefinite extension as they'd want to throw us out if we start to play silly buggers. The only way to remove an end date is to revoke.
The fact that the common law still uses all sorts of Norman French terms shows that it owes far more to the continent than pre-Conquest jurisprudence. “Mortgage” “Plaintiff” (admittedly defunct in England since 1998), “Bailiff”, “attorney”, “ assizes”, “defendant”, “chattel”, “culprit” - all this was imported together with their corresponding legal concepts.
It is the nature of language that new words are adopted without changing the underlying roots. As I mentioned earlier we use a mongrel vocabulary bit with a Brythonic structure. The fact that we use many Indian words does not mean we are a sub-continental nation. It just illustrates some cultural affinities. Others are far stronger.
As I said, many of those words (admittedly not all). denote concepts introduced from continental legal systems, not the Anglo-Saxon. Property law in England is essentially feudal in origin, brought with the Co quest, and most early common law judges had to be conversant with canon law from Rome - from there comes much of our probate law.
Indeed and to bring the discussion back full circle we carried that Common Law with us across the Commonwealth while the continental Europeans turned their back on it and moved to the Napoleonic Code.
And they are gradually drifting away from it while we, thankfully, are returning to our roots with a healthy injection of civil law through the EU that was long overdue.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
In the long run maybe*, but right now I find it ludicrous that people say we have more in common with places like Bulgaria.
* In the long run I think global factors will be far more important the proximity within the EU.
The real question is not whether we have more in common with Australia than Bulgaria, but whether we have more in common with Germany than the US.
One thing that strikes me, having lived and worked in Italy, Greece, and now Germany, is that in these countries the idea of "European solidarity" is familiar and generally welcome (impressions of Greece somewhat handicapped by never properly learning the language). In Britain I can't remember many people talking about European solidarity. It's a shame. The EU is clearly more than just a trading club, it is also about European solidarity, which is a good thing, but nobody in the UK is prepared to say that. Often the rest of the EU are spoken of as enemies.
It's scary that Boris Johnson (who was an actual US dual citizen until they sent him a tax bill) can write about how terrible it is that young people have "split allegiances" because they wave EU flags, as if the EU was a hostile power. As if people can't have multiple identities. As if people can't identify as both Arsenal supporters and Londoners, or both chess players and vegetarians, or both Quakers and Scottish. As if the only acceptable "split allegiance" for a Brit is to the USA.
I never feel more European than when I am in the US. For me, it is a very foreign place in a way that no European country is. Everything seems to be done differently there, But it is clearly a very personal thing. I certainly have multiple identities and it largely depends on where I am. I feel like a Londoner in England. In the other UK countries I am clearly English. In Scandinavia I am probably English, but in the rest of Europe British. In Australia and New Zealand I am definitely English. In Asia and Canada British. It's a marvellous thing. At my very core, though, I'd say I was English. When I am asked where I am from I always say England, except when I am in England. Then I say London!
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
Didn't we... don't we still for the moment anyway.... have a seat on all the governing bodies?
We do. But in the majority of cases we do not have a veto. That means laws can be made against our wishes. It is a fundamental point.
I have voted in every General Election since I was 21, the age at which one could in those days. That's every GE since 1959. In only one of them have I voted for a winning candidate, and in only 4 or 5 have I voted for a candidate of the party which subsequently formed the Government. Should I consider myself 'dictated to'?
The question was not whether you are 'dictated to' but whether you are 'governed'. Do you consider yourself not governed by those governments?
Yes; and in the same way I consider myself governed by the institutions of the EU, which are slowly (admittedly somewhat too slowly) being made more democratic. I would like to see the EU Parliament have a lot more power.
Had the EU committed to reform of it's institutions to address the democratic deficit then I don't think we would have voted to leave. The period of history where there are democratic states is small and precious. They only survive where those who govern can be replaced by the people, and the people show restraint in what they expect from their governments. The EU does not allow us the people to change those who set laws at an EU level, and that is the problem.
There needs to be a clear principle of subsidiarity to nation states similar to the federal/states arrangement in the US (and in the UK per Devolution, with NI and Wales taken to the same level as Scotland). The commission needs to not be able to propose laws - that should pass to the European Parliament.
AFAIR they had committed and were slowly getting on with it. The problem, AIUI, was that expansion and the subsequent 'absorbtion' of the Eastern Europe states, and in particular, the South Eastern was taking priority.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
In the long run maybe*, but right now I find it ludicrous that people say we have more in common with places like Bulgaria.
* In the long run I think global factors will be far more important the proximity within the EU.
The real question is not whether we have more in common with Australia than Bulgaria, but whether we have more in common with Germany than the US.
One thing that strikes me, having lived and worked in Italy, Greece, and now Germany, is that in these countries the idea of "European solidarity" is familiar and generally welcome (impressions of Greece somewhat handicapped by never properly learning the language). In Britain I can't remember many people talking about European solidarity. It's a shame. The EU is clearly more than just a trading club, it is also about European solidarity, which is a good thing, but nobody in the UK is prepared to say that. Often the rest of the EU are spoken of as enemies.
It's scary that Boris Johnson (who was an actual US dual citizen until they sent him a tax bill) can write about how terrible it is that young people have "split allegiances" because they wave EU flags, as if the EU was a hostile power. As if people can't have multiple identities. As if people can't identify as both Arsenal supporters and Londoners, or both chess players and vegetarians, or both Quakers and Scottish. As if the only acceptable "split allegiance" for a Brit is to the USA.
I never feel more European than when I am in the US. For me, it is a very foreign place in a way that no European country is. Everything seems to be done differently there, But it is clearly a very personal thing. I certainly have multiple identities and it largely depends on where I am. I feel like a Londoner in England. In the other UK countries I am clearly English. In Scandinavia I am probably English, but in the rest of Europe British. In Australia and New Zealand I am definitely English. In Asia and Canada British. It's a marvellous thing. At my very core, though, I'd say I was English. When I am asked where I am from I always say England, except when I am in England. Then I say London!
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
Really? Without wishing to get all Dan Hannan about this my Oxford degree in history led to a successful law conversion, an LLM and a job as a partner in a City law firm. I don’t think I’m in huge amounts of trouble TBF. Unlike you self who appears to put a lot of effort in but knows the square of sod all about anything.
LOL. My first degree was in Archaeology. My second in Geology. When not running a successful Consultancy firm I am director of an archaeology unit which is currently excavating sites ranging from the Late Upper Palaeolithic to Sub-Roman. I spent the winter excavating and analysing the earliest known Anglo-Saxon cremation urns so far found in Eastern England. I literally do this stuff every day.
So please Dan, try and drag your history knowledge out of the 19th century.
Would you call a Scot who had spent 7 years abroad a mock-Jock?
I would not phrase it so rudely. However I am of the opinion that if one lives abroad for a prolonged period of time then one's ability to describe oneself as "British" is lessened. To reassure you that this is not an attack on you personally, please note that I have mentioned this here before several times in contexts not involving you.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
Really? Without wishing to get all Dan Hannan about this my Oxford degree in history led to a successful law conversion, an LLM and a job as a partner in a City law firm. I don’t think I’m in huge amounts of trouble TBF. Unlike you self who appears to put a lot of effort in but knows the square of sod all about anything.
LOL. My first degree was in Archaeology. My second in Geology. When not running a successful Consultancy firm I am director of an archaeology unit which is currently excavating sites ranging from the Late Upper Palaeolithic to Sub-Roman. I spent the winter excavating and analysing the earliest known Anglo-Saxon cremation urns so far found in Eastern England. I literally do this stuff every day.
So please Dan, try and drag your history knowledge out of the 19th century.
All this boasting is getting tiresome.
There is more to history than grubbing around in the earth. And geology is just rocks.
Apart from a few nutters that you will get anywhere I have not seen anyone that has anything against English people. There are certainly plenty living here and majority seem happy. I am sure, just as you would in England , there are some scumbags that act otherwise but they will be hostile to most other Scots as well so being English is really secondary. That will be limited to mainly dodgy areas where I would not go myself I suspect, but I may be naive in my thinking. Certainly not a mainstream thing for sure. PS: For sure not perfect and "a few nutters" is probably far too low a count. Embarrassed if you have had poor experience whilst in Scotland, it is totally unacceptable.
I'm sure this is right. So much of the 'hostility' is banter.
However, quick anecdote, I was in Scotland a few years ago when England were playing a WC match, we got a penalty and Beckham stepped up, ran in, slipped on his arse and ballooned it miles over the bar.
The noise! The glee!
Whole neighborhood was shaking. I cannot imagine a bigger racket if 2014 had gone Yes.
Go to a pub in Liverpool and see a Manchester United player like David Beckham years ago do the same thing and listen to the reaction.
Doesn't mean they really hate each other.
Go to Glasgow and a pub full of Rangers fans and see a Celtic player do it, you'd get the same reaction.
Doesn't mean a Glaswegian really hates his fellow Glaswegians who support Celtic.
You sure about that? Really sure?
A Rangers fan may "hate" Celtic, but he doesn't hate the Glaswegians who support Celtic yes. A Liverpool fan may "hate" Man Utd but he doesn't hate the Mancs who support Man Utd yes.
As a Liverpool fan I can go to a pub with a Man Utd fan as friends, cheer opposing sides and love it if the opposing sides screw up for 90 minutes, but at the end of it we're still friends. I know its the only code phrase for racists but "some of my best friends are Man Utd fans".
Tongue in cheek, Mr T, tongue in cheek. Same here Norwich and Ipswich.
Apart from a few nutters that you will get anywhere I have not seen anyone that has anything against English people. There are certainly plenty living here and majority seem happy. I am sure, just as you would in England , there are some scumbags that act otherwise but they will be hostile to most other Scots as well so being English is really secondary. That will be limited to mainly dodgy areas where I would not go myself I suspect, but I may be naive in my thinking. Certainly not a mainstream thing for sure. PS: For sure not perfect and "a few nutters" is probably far too low a count. Embarrassed if you have had poor experience whilst in Scotland, it is totally unacceptable.
I'm sure this is right. So much of the 'hostility' is banter.
However, quick anecdote, I was in Scotland a few years ago when England were playing a WC match, we got a penalty and Beckham stepped up, ran in, slipped on his arse and ballooned it miles over the bar.
The noise! The glee!
Whole neighborhood was shaking. I cannot imagine a bigger racket if 2014 had gone Yes.
Go to a pub in Liverpool and see a Manchester United player like David Beckham years ago do the same thing and listen to the reaction.
Doesn't mean they really hate each other.
Go to Glasgow and a pub full of Rangers fans and see a Celtic player do it, you'd get the same reaction.
Doesn't mean a Glaswegian really hates his fellow Glaswegians who support Celtic.
You sure about that? Really sure?
A Rangers fan may "hate" Celtic, but he doesn't hate the Glaswegians who support Celtic yes. A Liverpool fan may "hate" Man Utd but he doesn't hate the Mancs who support Man Utd yes.
As a Liverpool fan I can go to a pub with a Man Utd fan as friends, cheer opposing sides and love it if the opposing sides screw up for 90 minutes, but at the end of it we're still friends. I know its the only code phrase for racists but "some of my best friends are Man Utd fans".
Tongue in cheek, Mr T, tongue in cheek. Same here Norwich and Ipswich.
Yeah but Ipswich are lol I say that as a Norwich based Leeds fan
The fact that the common law still uses all sorts of Norman French terms shows that it owes far more to the continent than pre-Conquest jurisprudence. “Mortgage” “Plaintiff” (admittedly defunct in England since 1998), “Bailiff”, “attorney”, “ assizes”, “defendant”, “chattel”, “culprit” - all this was imported together with their corresponding legal concepts.
It is the nature of language that new words are adopted without changing the underlying roots. As I mentioned earlier we use a mongrel vocabulary bit with a Brythonic structure. The fact that we use many Indian words does not mean we are a sub-continental nation. It just illustrates some cultural affinities. Others are far stronger.
As I said, many of those words (admittedly not all). denote concepts introduced from continental legal systems, not the Anglo-Saxon. Property law in England is essentially feudal in origin, brought with the Co quest, and most early common law judges had to be conversant with canon law from Rome - from there comes much of our probate law.
Inheritance and property law are areas where we've moved a very long way from European norms, whereas, they would indeed have had a lot more in common in Medieval times.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
Really? Without wishing to get all Dan Hannan about this my Oxford degree in history led to a successful law conversion, an LLM and a job as a partner in a City law firm. I don’t think I’m in huge amounts of trouble TBF. Unlike you self who appears to put a lot of effort in but knows the square of sod all about anything.
LOL. My first degree was in Archaeology. My second in Geology. When not running a successful Consultancy firm I am director of an archaeology unit which is currently excavating sites ranging from the Late Upper Palaeolithic to Sub-Roman. I spent the winter excavating and analysing the earliest known Anglo-Saxon cremation urns so far found in Eastern England. I literally do this stuff every day.
So please Dan, try and drag your history knowledge out of the 19th century.
Oi! As a specialist in the long 19th century I object to that slur!
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
Really? Without wishing to get all Dan Hannan about this my Oxford degree in history led to a successful law conversion, an LLM and a job as a partner in a City law firm. I don’t think I’m in huge amounts of trouble TBF. Unlike you self who appears to put a lot of effort in but knows the square of sod all about anything.
LOL. My first degree was in Archaeology. My second in Geology. When not running a successful Consultancy firm I am director of an archaeology unit which is currently excavating sites ranging from the Late Upper Palaeolithic to Sub-Roman. I spent the winter excavating and analysing the earliest known Anglo-Saxon cremation urns so far found in Eastern England. I literally do this stuff every day.
So please Dan, try and drag your history knowledge out of the 19th century.
And I deal with the law every day yet you consider yourself better placed to lecture me on the origin of legal terms. It may not be worth much to you but coincidentally I am also a (admittedly non-executive) director of an archeological practice and am pretty conversant, although I do not do it every day. If you want to get into a pissing contest be my guest.
It's pretty obvious that people will feel more in common with people with whom they share a language (unless there's a history of ethnic hatred) than with people they don't. They'll enjoy similar films, plays, books, jokes etc.
I'm genuinely astounded that there are people on here insisting we have more in common with all of the EU27 than Australia. That only seems to work if you ignore history, language, law, government, culture, sport, migration and family ties, and make distance the overriding factor. It's a very superficial way of looking at the world.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
Culturally, people in this country are far more interested in what goes on in other English speaking-countries than in non-English speaking countries. Films, books, plays, TV series travel between English speaking countries in a way that just doesn't happen between English and non-English speaking countries.
I've watched MANY more European tv series than Australian/NZ/Canadian ones over the last few years (probably on a par with US series), the book I'm currently reading is an English translation from French, the last exhibition I made an effort to travel to was the work of a German and afaik I've never seen a specifically Australian/NZ/Canadian play. I'd love to think I'm exceptional, but I'm not.
You aren't exceptional, but you are untypical.
Which ANZAC films, plays, books & tv series have you enjoyed in the last 3 months?
Over the past three months, the main one is Spartacus, which is a very long series, although I've also re-watched The Lord of the Rings, and the first part of The Hobbit.
I'm not sure if fantasies based on Norse myths, another loosely based on ancient European history and the accidents of their film locations are entirely indicative of a cultural broederbond.
The point is that the books were written by a Brit, the films were directed by a New Zealander, and no-one in this country would have noticed the difference unless they had seen Peter Jackson interviewed (or heard of him beforehand). This is rarely the same for directors from other European countries.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
I though the Anglo-Saxon was more of a migration than an invasion. The genetic analysis suggests a lot of cohabitation and surviving British settlements in “Saxon areas”
More a cultural movement than a physical one, with indigenous Britons adopting Saxon language and culture. The evidence of genetics is that numbers coming over were relatively minor from Germany and Scandinavia.
Indeed. In that way the Anglos Saxon and Norman 'invasions' were quite similar. Both look to have involved relatively small numbers of people and there is little sign in the former of much violence involved.
The one interesting avenue being explored though which might challenge that view is the idea that lowland Britain had, to a large extent, been depopulated by plagues and societal collapse by the early 5th century. It is entirely possible that Anglo-Saxons arriving at that time were moving into a largely empty landscape. It would help to account for their habit of avoiding Roman towns and cities which may have been associated with death and disease.
I know what you mean, but you have to define "services" very tightly for that to be true. Obvious exceptions are haircuts, babysitting, decorating, plumbing, and so on. Even conveyancing and will-writing, two things which are entirely feasible to do from other countries, are rarely done remotely.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
I though the Anglo-Saxon was more of a migration than an invasion. The genetic analysis suggests a lot of cohabitation and surviving British settlements in “Saxon areas”
More a cultural movement than a physical one, with indigenous Britons adopting Saxon language and culture. The evidence of genetics is that numbers coming over were relatively minor from Germany and Scandinavia.
I thought the genetics pointed rather more to Germanic peoples having been arriving in south eastern England over a much longer period, during the Roman era and even before?
And I deal with the law every day yet you consider yourself better placed to lecture me on the origin of legal terms. It may not be worth much to you but coincidentally I am also a (admittedly non-executive) director of an archeological practice and am pretty conversant, although I do not do it every day. If you want to get into a pissing contest be my guest.
At no time did I lecture you on the origin of the terms. I simply observed that we adopt words from many different sources without necessarily changing underlying concepts.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
Really? Without wishing to get all Dan Hannan about this my Oxford degree in history led to a successful law conversion, an LLM and a job as a partner in a City law firm. I don’t think I’m in huge amounts of trouble TBF. Unlike you self who appears to put a lot of effort in but knows the square of sod all about anything.
LOL. My first degree was in Archaeology. My second in Geology. When not running a successful Consultancy firm I am director of an archaeology unit which is currently excavating sites ranging from the Late Upper Palaeolithic to Sub-Roman. I spent the winter excavating and analysing the earliest known Anglo-Saxon cremation urns so far found in Eastern England. I literally do this stuff every day.
So please Dan, try and drag your history knowledge out of the 19th century.
Oi! As a specialist in the long 19th century I object to that slur!
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
Really? Without wishing to get all Dan Hannan about this my Oxford degree in history led to a successful law conversion, an LLM and a job as a partner in a City law firm. I don’t think I’m in huge amounts of trouble TBF. Unlike you self who appears to put a lot of effort in but knows the square of sod all about anything.
LOL. My first degree was in Archaeology. My second in Geology. When not running a successful Consultancy firm I am director of an archaeology unit which is currently excavating sites ranging from the Late Upper Palaeolithic to Sub-Roman. I spent the winter excavating and analysing the earliest known Anglo-Saxon cremation urns so far found in Eastern England. I literally do this stuff every day. ..
I’m missing the relevance of archaeology to the periods you are arguing over. And would not have imagined you as someone prey to credentialism.
And I deal with the law every day yet you consider yourself better placed to lecture me on the origin of legal terms. It may not be worth much to you but coincidentally I am also a (admittedly non-executive) director of an archeological practice and am pretty conversant, although I do not do it every day. If you want to get into a pissing contest be my guest.
At no time did I lecture you on the origin of the terms. I simply observed that we adopt words from many different sources without necessarily changing underlying concepts.
Non executive director... Hahahaha.
I’m a director and trustee of the Canterbury Archaeological Trust.
Mods - I have too much work to do and getting constantly into debates here is too distracting for me at the minute and I don't have the willpower not to do so it seems. Brexit is going to happen with or without me arguing here. Could I please request to be temporarily banned from this site? If so please could you drop me an email to my registered address so that I can reply to it to request to be unbanned when I catch up on everything I need to do? Thank you and goodbye for now if so. @rcs1000@TheScreamingEagles
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
I though the Anglo-Saxon was more of a migration than an invasion. The genetic analysis suggests a lot of cohabitation and surviving British settlements in “Saxon areas”
More a cultural movement than a physical one, with indigenous Britons adopting Saxon language and culture. The evidence of genetics is that numbers coming over were relatively minor from Germany and Scandinavia.
Indeed. In that way the Anglos Saxon and Norman 'invasions' were quite similar. Both look to have involved relatively small numbers of people and there is little sign in the former of much violence involved.
The one interesting avenue being explored though which might challenge that view is the idea that lowland Britain had, to a large extent, been depopulated by plagues and societal collapse by the early 5th century. It is entirely possible that Anglo-Saxons arriving at that time were moving into a largely empty landscape. It would help to account for their habit of avoiding Roman towns and cities which may have been associated with death and disease.
There is a widespread view that apart from Rome, Carthage, and a handful of smaller cities, urban life had mostly vanished in the Western Empire by the Fourth century.
Curtice on PL saying Brexit has reversed consolidation toward the main parties that we saw in 2017
Their failure to implement it has done that. The only reason 2017 saw consolidation towards them is that they promised to respect the result and UKIP gave up
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
Really? Without wishing to get all Dan Hannan about this my Oxford degree in history led to a successful law conversion, an LLM and a job as a partner in a City law firm. I don’t think I’m in huge amounts of trouble TBF. Unlike you self who appears to put a lot of effort in but knows the square of sod all about anything.
LOL. My first degree was in Archaeology. My second in Geology. When not running a successful Consultancy firm I am director of an archaeology unit which is currently excavating sites ranging from the Late Upper Palaeolithic to Sub-Roman. I spent the winter excavating and analysing the earliest known Anglo-Saxon cremation urns so far found in Eastern England. I literally do this stuff every day.
So please Dan, try and drag your history knowledge out of the 19th century.
All this boasting is getting tiresome.
There is more to history than grubbing around in the earth. And geology is just rocks.
And alcohol. Why does everyone always forget the alcohol?
But when you are talking about the sub-Roman period as we were, archaeology is pretty fundamental. Indeed it has completely transformed our view of the period over the last couple of decades.
This is far from being a brilliant result for Labour - though far from the disaster of the Copeland by election of February 2017. I am not sure that 'swing' calculations reveal much in the current febrile atmosphere - and I strongly suspect that having been the ruling party at the Welsh Assembly for so long will have done Labour no favours. In a GE , the latter factor would probably be much less relevant. I recall the Berwick & East Lothian by election of November 1978 following the untimely death of John Mackintosh. There were high Tory hopes of winning this marginal from Labour yet the by election saw a swing to Labour and an increased majority. It was,of course, no guide at all to what lay ahead at the 1979 GE.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
Really? Without wishing to get all Dan Hannan about this my Oxford degree in history led to a successful law conversion, an LLM and a job as a partner in a City law firm. I don’t think I’m in huge amounts of trouble TBF. Unlike you self who appears to put a lot of effort in but knows the square of sod all about anything.
LOL. My first degree was in Archaeology. My second in Geology. When not running a successful Consultancy firm I am director of an archaeology unit which is currently excavating sites ranging from the Late Upper Palaeolithic to Sub-Roman. I spent the winter excavating and analysing the earliest known Anglo-Saxon cremation urns so far found in Eastern England. I literally do this stuff every day. ..
I’m missing the relevance of archaeology to the periods you are arguing over. And would not have imagined you as someone prey to credentialism.
And I deal with the law every day yet you consider yourself better placed to lecture me on the origin of legal terms. It may not be worth much to you but coincidentally I am also a (admittedly non-executive) director of an archeological practice and am pretty conversant, although I do not do it every day. If you want to get into a pissing contest be my guest.
At no time did I lecture you on the origin of the terms. I simply observed that we adopt words from many different sources without necessarily changing underlying concepts.
Non executive director... Hahahaha.
I’m a director and trustee of the Canterbury Archaeological Trust.
Then you really really should known better than to trot out long discarded ideas.
And I deal with the law every day yet you consider yourself better placed to lecture me on the origin of legal terms. It may not be worth much to you but coincidentally I am also a (admittedly non-executive) director of an archeological practice and am pretty conversant, although I do not do it every day. If you want to get into a pissing contest be my guest.
At no time did I lecture you on the origin of the terms. I simply observed that we adopt words from many different sources without necessarily changing underlying concepts.
Non executive director... Hahahaha.
I’m a director and trustee of the Canterbury Archaeological Trust.
I'm maybe being ridiculously naive, but I think I can imagine you two lads meeting in 'real life' and having a civilized and mutually interesting exchange.
I know what you mean, but you have to define "services" very tightly for that to be true. Obvious exceptions are haircuts, babysitting, decorating, plumbing, and so on. Even conveyancing and will-writing, two things which are entirely feasible to do from other countries, are rarely done remotely.
Good point, and the same complaint could be made about trading in goods, as much of that is relatively local and within the UK. I should have been clear that I meant goods and services that cross country borders. We all tend to forget that for a lot of business the whole Brexit debate is almost irrelevant.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
I though the Anglo-Saxon was more of a migration than an invasion. The genetic analysis suggests a lot of cohabitation and surviving British settlements in “Saxon areas”
More a cultural movement than a physical one, with indigenous Britons adopting Saxon language and culture. The evidence of genetics is that numbers coming over were relatively minor from Germany and Scandinavia.
Indeed. In that way the Anglos Saxon and Norman 'invasions' were quite similar. Both look to have involved relatively small numbers of people and there is little sign in the former of much violence involved.
The one interesting avenue being explored though which might challenge that view is the idea that lowland Britain had, to a large extent, been depopulated by plagues and societal collapse by the early 5th century. It is entirely possible that Anglo-Saxons arriving at that time were moving into a largely empty landscape. It would help to account for their habit of avoiding Roman towns and cities which may have been associated with death and disease.
I read somewhere that one of the Roman officials in Britain was the Count of the Saxon Shore? This would suggest that this area of Britain had Saxons living there? I have always thought that this was more likely as description of the name than a shore which faced the Saxons on the otherside of the sea.
And I deal with the law every day yet you consider yourself better placed to lecture me on the origin of legal terms. It may not be worth much to you but coincidentally I am also a (admittedly non-executive) director of an archeological practice and am pretty conversant, although I do not do it every day. If you want to get into a pissing contest be my guest.
At no time did I lecture you on the origin of the terms. I simply observed that we adopt words from many different sources without necessarily changing underlying concepts.
Non executive director... Hahahaha.
I’m a director and trustee of the Canterbury Archaeological Trust.
Then you really really should known better than to trot out long discarded ideas.
You really need to practice harder at being insulting. You’re as fucking terrible at it as your political arguments are. Also your knowledge of legal history is embarrassing
This is far from being a brilliant result for Labour - though far from the disaster of the Copeland by election of February 2017. I am not sure that 'swing' calculations reveal much in the current febrile atmosphere - and I strongly suspect that having been the ruling party at the Welsh Assembly for so long will have done Labour no favours. In a GE , the latter factor would probably be much less relevant. I recall the Berwick & East Lothian by election of November 1978 following the untimely death of John Mackintosh. There were high Tory hopes of winning this marginal from Labour yet the by election saw a swing to Labour and an increased majority. It was,of course, no guide at all to what lay ahead at the 1979 GE.
Labour's cut and paste by-election campaign always revolves around "save the NHS". This message probably doesn't play as well in Wales where they run the NHS.
It depends if you are looking backwards or forwards. Our future is European, and has been since the Sixties. Australia and NZ see themselves as Pacific since about the same period.
In the long run maybe*, but right now I find it ludicrous that people say we have more in common with places like Bulgaria.
* In the long run I think global factors will be far more important the proximity within the EU.
The real question is not whether we have more in common with Australia than Bulgaria, but whether we have more in common with Germany than the US.
One thing that strikes me, having lived and worked in Italy, Greece, and now Germany, is that in these countries the idea of "European solidarity" is familiar and generally welcome (impressions of Greece somewhat handicapped by never properly learning the language). In Britain I can't remember many people talking about European solidarity. It's a shame. The EU is clearly more than just a trading club, it is also about European solidarity, which is a good thing, but nobody in the UK is prepared to say that. Often the rest of the EU are spoken of as enemies.
It's scary that Boris Johnson (who was an actual US dual citizen until they sent him a tax bill) can write about how terrible it is that young people have "split allegiances" because they wave EU flags, as if the EU was a hostile power. As if people can't have multiple identities. As if people can't identify as both Arsenal supporters and Londoners, or both chess players and vegetarians, or both Quakers and Scottish. As if the only acceptable "split allegiance" for a Brit is to the USA.
I never feel more European than when I am in the US. For me, it is a very foreign place in a way that no European country is. Everything seems to be done differently there, But it is clearly a very personal thing. I certainly have multiple identities and it largely depends on where I am. I feel like a Londoner in England. In the other UK countries I am clearly English. In Scandinavia I am probably English, but in the rest of Europe British. In Australia and New Zealand I am definitely English. In Asia and Canada British. It's a marvellous thing. At my very core, though, I'd say I was English. When I am asked where I am from I always say England, except when I am in England. Then I say London!
I thought you were from the Midlands?
I live in the Midlands, but was born and bred in Norf London.
This is far from being a brilliant result for Labour - though far from the disaster of the Copeland by election of February 2017. I am not sure that 'swing' calculations reveal much in the current febrile atmosphere - and I strongly suspect that having been the ruling party at the Welsh Assembly for so long will have done Labour no favours. In a GE , the latter factor would probably be much less relevant. I recall the Berwick & East Lothian by election of November 1978 following the untimely death of John Mackintosh. There were high Tory hopes of winning this marginal from Labour yet the by election saw a swing to Labour and an increased majority. It was,of course, no guide at all to what lay ahead at the 1979 GE.
Berwick was a pretty good guide to the Scottish result in 1979, as Labour tended to gain ground from the Conservatives, although the Conservatives regained more ground from the SNP.
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
I though the Anglo-Saxon was more of a migration than an invasion. The genetic analysis suggests a lot of cohabitation and surviving British settlements in “Saxon areas”
More a cultural movement than a physical one, with indigenous Britons adopting Saxon language and culture. The evidence of genetics is that numbers coming over were relatively minor from Germany and Scandinavia.
Indeed. In that way the Anglos Saxon and Norman 'invasions' were quite similar. Both look to have involved relatively small numbers of people and there is little sign in the former of much violence involved.
The one interesting avenue being explored though which might challenge that view is the idea that lowland Britain had, to a large extent, been depopulated by plagues and societal collapse by the early 5th century. It is entirely possible that Anglo-Saxons arriving at that time were moving into a largely empty landscape. It would help to account for their habit of avoiding Roman towns and cities which may have been associated with death and disease.
I read somewhere that one of the Roman officials in Britain was the Count of the Saxon Shore? This would suggest that this area of Britain had Saxons living there? I have always thought that this was more likely as description of the name than a shore which faced the Saxons on the otherside of the sea.
There were in all likelihood, plenty of Saxons serving in the Roman army by that point.
I’m struggling to think or feel any level of European identity.
I like going on holiday there, and they all have a long linguistic and cultural history, largely based on Christianity, just like we do, but it still feels very foreign to me compared to the UK. Even just across the channel in France.
And I deal with the law every day yet you consider yourself better placed to lecture me on the origin of legal terms. It may not be worth much to you but coincidentally I am also a (admittedly non-executive) director of an archeological practice and am pretty conversant, although I do not do it every day. If you want to get into a pissing contest be my guest.
At no time did I lecture you on the origin of the terms. I simply observed that we adopt words from many different sources without necessarily changing underlying concepts.
Non executive director... Hahahaha.
I’m a director and trustee of the Canterbury Archaeological Trust.
I'm maybe being ridiculously naive, but I think I can imagine you two lads meeting in 'real life' and having a civilized and mutually interesting exchange.
''tis the trouble with the Internet, as Tyndall has observed before. The two of them in the pub are most unlikely to end up shouting at each other about their qualifications.
I would rather judge on the argument and the evidence, anyhow. Qualifications and position generally offer poor protection against being wrong.
I'm maybe being ridiculously naive, but I think I can imagine you two lads meeting in 'real life' and having a civilized and mutually interesting exchange.
I can think of combinations of posters on here who would batter fuck out of each other in meatspace.
I don't think it matters whether we have more in common with the Europeans or the Anglosphere. I don't want to govern, or be governed, by either. I want to be friends with them all, and that's it.
We are not "governed" by the EU .
I would define governed, at least in part, as having laws made for us, with or without our agreement, over which we have no veto. That is certainly the case with the EU.
We participate in all EU law, directly or indirectly, via the Council of Ministers who the Commission reports to, so no, we are not governed by the EU. I doubt that any reputable lawyer or constitutional expert would agree with your contention.
We are not governed by Westminster either by your logic. Its odd logic.
The greatest problem with the EU is the ratchet and irreversible effect of it perverting our Parliamentary system. The EU drives a stake through the heart of the fundamental democratic principle of "no Parliament can bind its successors". A [potentially unpopular] PM/Parliament can put through a [potentially unpopular] legal change through the EU and then we have no way of reversing it.
Blair/Brown knew Lisbon was unpopular but they ratified it anyway, no successor could then undo that mess.
I want our laws governed by people we elect, who can reverse what their predecessors passed if it was wrong to pass it.
Brown was an arse of the first order
Indeed and thanks to the EU we can't reverse his actions. Not without leaving the EU.
Whether we're ruled by Westminster, Holyrood, Brussels or Strasbourg we should elect our rulers as part of a demos and be able to replace them with rulers who can reverse what bad rulers like Brown enact.
Indeed and hopefully reverse Thatcher and neo Liberalism in general after GE 2019
Make your mind up, which one do you want to reverse ? Thatcher defended the bourgeoisie from the free market.
For my sins I studied medieval English history at university. It left me with an abiding interest in landscape, dialect and place names - which is all pretty niche, I know! Anyway, if you are interested, this is a link to a brilliant place names resource. For nurds like me it can provide hours of fun:
Mr. Seal, we were left by the Romans quite early (and required three legions to Iberia's one, despite a smaller population, to keep down rebellions), we weren't part of the Carolingian Empire, we enjoyed the Alfred and his successors' glories as Europe fragmented, we left the Catholic Church to form our own, we use Common Law rather than Roman Law.
The British Isles have been apart from European-wide institutions for longer than we've been part of them. From religion to empire to law. Opposing continental empire-building has been pretty consistent for the British.
What we have now is a political class that loves the EU and a population that's divided, with a majority in the only vote on the matter against our membership.
Oh dear. The departure of the Romans led to an immediate successful invasion by the Anglo-Saxons. After Alfred we were successively part of the Danish, Norman and Angevin Empires. Then we were in various forms of union with our island neighbours. In addition we spent time in personal union with the Netherlands and then Hanover. This romantic idea of glorious isolation is quite the most spectacular bullshit.
Got to say I hope you know more about law than you do about history or you are in a lot of trouble.
Really? Without wishing to get all Dan Hannan about this my Oxford degree in history led to a successful law conversion, an LLM and a job as a partner in a City law firm. I don’t think I’m in huge amounts of trouble TBF. Unlike you self who appears to put a lot of effort in but knows the square of sod all about anything.
in Eastern England. I literally do this stuff every day.
So please Dan, try and drag your history knowledge out of the 19th century.
All this boasting is getting tiresome.
There is more to history than grubbing around in the earth. And geology is just rocks.
And alcohol. Why does everyone always forget the alcohol?
But when you are talking about the sub-Roman period as we were, archaeology is pretty fundamental. Indeed it has completely transformed our view of the period over the last couple of decades.
Is there an up to date textbook? Or guide for the general reader. I studied Anglo-Saxon history as part of my degree but am sure my knowledge is out of date.
This is far from being a brilliant result for Labour - though far from the disaster of the Copeland by election of February 2017. I am not sure that 'swing' calculations reveal much in the current febrile atmosphere - and I strongly suspect that having been the ruling party at the Welsh Assembly for so long will have done Labour no favours. In a GE , the latter factor would probably be much less relevant. I recall the Berwick & East Lothian by election of November 1978 following the untimely death of John Mackintosh. There were high Tory hopes of winning this marginal from Labour yet the by election saw a swing to Labour and an increased majority. It was,of course, no guide at all to what lay ahead at the 1979 GE.
Berwick was a pretty good guide to the Scottish result in 1979, as Labour tended to gain ground from the Conservatives, although the Conservatives regained more ground from the SNP.
To a great extent that was true - though Labour did less well at Berwick in the May 1979 election when the positive by election swing was more than reversed.
Comments
Might not happen of course - in politics, as in life generally, things don't happen far more frequently than they do - but in this case I will be surprised.
I am sure, just as you would in England , there are some scumbags that act otherwise but they will be hostile to most other Scots as well so being English is really secondary. That will be limited to mainly dodgy areas where I would not go myself I suspect, but I may be naive in my thinking. Certainly not a mainstream thing for sure.
PS: For sure not perfect and "a few nutters" is probably far too low a count. Embarrassed if you have had poor experience whilst in Scotland, it is totally unacceptable.
The brand image of UKIP is strong and the association between Mr Nigel UKIP Farage and the party he once led is even stronger.
Mr. Seal, after Alfred, Edward and Aethelstan completed the conquest/foundation of what might be termed England. The 'Danish Empire' didn't last very long.
The Norman Empire never existed. William I was indeed Duke of Normandy and then became King of England, but after he died infighting between his sons led the King of England (then Henry I) to defeat the Duke of Normandy (Robert Curthose) and Normandy became the possession of England, not the other way around.
The Angevin Empire was also ruled by the man who was king of England, not whoever was Count of Anjou.
The British Isles have never been isolated from Europe but isolation and separation are different things and we have numerous and obvious distinct differences to continental Europe. (Religion, law, being apart from the Carolingians and enjoying our own medieval heyday as the Carolingian Empire was fracturing, and so on).
It is friendly banter not hatred. Anyone who can't tell the difference is a fool.
Ultimately we should negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with the EU like Canada has with the USA. But I think you'll find that NAFTA is a world apart from the EU or even EFTA - ask how many Americans think it would be a good idea to grant totally free movement with Mexico.
However, quick anecdote, I was in Scotland a few years ago when England were playing a WC match, we got a penalty and Beckham stepped up, ran in, slipped on his arse and ballooned it miles over the bar.
The noise! The glee!
Whole neighborhood was shaking. I cannot imagine a bigger racket if 2014 had gone Yes.
Helmer quit Tuesday, they are out of recognisible figures apart from Yaxley, and he will drop them when he finds something else to piss about with
However, quick anecdote, I was in Scotland a few years ago when England were playing a WC match, we got a penalty and Beckham stepped up, ran in, slipped on his arse and ballooned it miles over the bar.
The noise! The glee!
Whole neighborhood was shaking. I cannot imagine a bigger racket if 2014 had gone Yes.
Football is another matter, it is special case for 90 minutes, or 150 minutes as England always end up with extra time and penalties.
Malc and I have an excellent discourse on here and we are different politically.
Doesn't mean they really hate each other.
Go to Glasgow and a pub full of Rangers fans and see a Celtic player do it, you'd get the same reaction.
Doesn't mean a Glaswegian really hates his fellow Glaswegians who support Celtic.
People could vote for parties with clear positions in their droves - LibDem/TIG/Green to stop Brexit or UKIP/BXT for a hard Brexit - and have their votes rendered mostly worthless, while we see one of the main parties walk into majority power on a third of the vote. With people voting for those main parties having to do a lot of research on their local candidate to discover what exactly are their views on Brexit, with pot luck as to what they are being offered in their constituency, which could be anything from hard Brexit to hard Remain.
A Liverpool fan may "hate" Man Utd but he doesn't hate the Mancs who support Man Utd yes.
As a Liverpool fan I can go to a pub with a Man Utd fan as friends, cheer opposing sides and love it if the opposing sides screw up for 90 minutes, but at the end of it we're still friends. I know its the only code phrase for racists but "some of my best friends are Man Utd fans".
https://twitter.com/OldRangersVideo/status/1113363922403450880
Mr. Charles, it's an interesting question. I'd go for invasion leading to settlement, but you're right that there was a lot of cohabiting. But the top dogs got the jobs by right of conquest.
(Am I right in that? It seems weird but technically correct)
https://twitter.com/RogerHelmerMEP/status/1114065133800697857
So please Dan, try and drag your history knowledge out of the 19th century.
There is more to history than grubbing around in the earth. And geology is just rocks.
I say that as a Norwich based Leeds fan
The one interesting avenue being explored though which might challenge that view is the idea that lowland Britain had, to a large extent, been depopulated by plagues and societal collapse by the early 5th century. It is entirely possible that Anglo-Saxons arriving at that time were moving into a largely empty landscape. It would help to account for their habit of avoiding Roman towns and cities which may have been associated with death and disease.
Non executive director... Hahahaha.
And would not have imagined you as someone prey to credentialism.
And with that I must adieu.
Mods - I have too much work to do and getting constantly into debates here is too distracting for me at the minute and I don't have the willpower not to do so it seems. Brexit is going to happen with or without me arguing here. Could I please request to be temporarily banned from this site? If so please could you drop me an email to my registered address so that I can reply to it to request to be unbanned when I catch up on everything I need to do? Thank you and goodbye for now if so. @rcs1000 @TheScreamingEagles
But when you are talking about the sub-Roman period as we were, archaeology is pretty fundamental. Indeed it has completely transformed our view of the period over the last couple of decades.
I recall the Berwick & East Lothian by election of November 1978 following the untimely death of John Mackintosh. There were high Tory hopes of winning this marginal from Labour yet the by election saw a swing to Labour and an increased majority. It was,of course, no guide at all to what lay ahead at the 1979 GE.
I like going on holiday there, and they all have a long linguistic and cultural history, largely based on Christianity, just like we do, but it still feels very foreign to me compared to the UK. Even just across the channel in France.
I would rather judge on the argument and the evidence, anyhow. Qualifications and position generally offer poor protection against being wrong.
Thatcher defended the bourgeoisie from the free market.
http://kepn.nottingham.ac.uk/
English dialect fans should go here:
https://sounds.bl.uk/Accents-and-dialects/Survey-of-English-dialects
It offers a dip into an England that has all but gone.
The pro / anti Brexit extremist parties now polling a total of 24%.