Here's an interestin' fella'

I refer to the Cambridge historian, Robert Tombs, whose speciality is the history of France.  He has an interesting article in The Telegraph which is headed "Misguided Remainers do not understand European history".  Yes, I do realise that is a statement of 'the bleedin' obvious' but his knowledgable analysis is worth reading:

Romantic Europhiles like to hark back to ancient Greece and adopt a quasi-nationalist view that Europa has some deep and continuing cultural identity of which the modern European Union is somehow an embodiment and Europe’s destiny. A glib answer would be that if such identity were real, the EU would not be experiencing so many conflicts. The truth is that Europe is very diverse. Its only historical claim to unity is as Christendom, but even that unity did not last beyond the 11th century. In its languages, cultures and mores it is hardly more a unity than Africa or Asia, and far less so than South America.

So is it, perhaps, that inherent disunity that is the driver behind the 'United States of Europe'?  Not quite, says the Professor:

Should one then turn the argument on its head? Is it precisely because Europe is so divided that it needs the EU? Without it, one often hears, we would go back to the 1930s or to 1914. But so remote from any imaginable reality is war between European democracies that justifying the EU as the force keeping them from each other’s throats is absurd. Even more extraordinary is the idea, espoused by Tony Blair among others, that if we withdraw from ‘Europe’, we might have to go back as in 1914 to stop future mayhem.

Or is it, perhaps, that the EU protects all those 'lickle' European countries from Big Global Bully Boys?  According to the 'Prof', not so:

Mr Guy Verhofstadt declared to cheering Lib Dems that “The world of tomorrow is a world of empires” in which the EU would replace the nation-states. How often we have heard this since Joseph Chamberlain first announced in 1904 that “The day of empires has come”. Leaving aside the question of whether the lumbering EU is remotely capable of bestriding the globe, we should ask ourselves where Chamberlain’s great empires are now.

Good question, and the 'Prof' answers it thus:

One with Nineveh and Tyre is the answer – though interestingly, some of the leading imperialists of Chamberlain’s day became early champions of European federalism. The huge states are all and always in trouble, struggling to hold themselves together and defend their borders. Small, nimble, united and democratic states are more resilient and successful. Where would you put your life savings? Brazil or Switzerland? China or Singapore?

We Brexiteers have no wish to be enemy of the EU.  Quite the contrary, we wish to freely trade and exchange with them.  What we do not want under any circumstances is for their laws to have precedence over ours.

Cue: Enter stage Left, Right and Centre - SoD!

 

 

Comments

[Whitewall]

"What we do not want under any circumstances is for their laws to have precedence over ours." Bingo! Who shall govern Great Britain?

[Whitewall]

Golly can you imagine the foaming at the mouth and gnashing of teeth that will follow if PM Johnson actually does pull off a deal, done and gone?!

Why Boris simply doesn't have the wardrobe and good grooming it should take to best the 'fragrant French' etal.

[Loz]

"Golly can you imagine the foaming at the mouth and gnashing of teeth that will follow if PM Johnson actually does pull off a deal, done and gone?!"

Given that Varadkar is happy with it, when we find out what deal is the only wailing and gnashing of teeth there's likely to be is from Brexiteers!

Whatever it is it won't get through parliament, there's too much bad blood now.

Extension, election, Lib-Lab Pact, referendum, Remain, in that order.

Future history, a la SoD.

SoD

[Whitewall]

So, one for Leave and one for Remain? Do I hear best two out of three?

[Loz]

Let it keep going forever, once every 5 years, that's democracy.

SoD