Let’s make England little again. (Chris Jackson/Getty Images)
In November 1953, Queen Elizabeth set off on her first international tour after her coronation. The voyage would last six months, travel 40,000 miles and visit 13 different realms. Throughout it all, the monarch would have to deal with prime ministers and governors, local politics and constitutional dilemmas, doing her best to avoid the extraordinary array of diplomatic pitfalls which lay in her way.
In the Caribbean, her government had only just ousted the elected prime minister of British Guiana, sparking angry accusations of imperial control. In Australia, a deadly polio outbreak posed a direct risk to her health. In Ceylon, Communist unrest had reached such a level the country’s premier felt he needed to warn the Queen that the visit might need to be cancelled. And in Uganda, Britain’s decision to depose and exile the Kabaka of Buganda, the traditional ruler of the country’s largest kingdom, was still causing ructions. Even in Gibraltar, the final stop of Her Majesty’s grand tour, there were demands from General Franco that the visit be abandoned.
And yet, the entire tour went ahead, millions turned out to catch a glimpse of their new sovereign, and a delighted government back in London felt a sudden rush of confidence about our international standing following the loss of India only a few years earlier.
Last week, the Gallic half of King Charles’s first foreign expedition as monarch had to be cancelled because of the rioting in Paris. And so all he will have to show for his first overseas excursion as King will be a short tour of Germany.
To those of a certain temperament, the contrast between mother and son is more than a little sobering. But rather than lamenting the timidity of modern life or the decline of our national horizons, I say we should cheer them. Charles’s first trip as King might reflect the decline of our global stature, but there is nothing wrong with this decline. It could be a very good thing.
Once you take off the rose-tinted spectacles, the 1953 tour was not quite what it seemed. The objective of the great global jamboree was to “reaffirm the durability of the British Empire”, as Philip Murphy wrote in Monarchy and the End of Empire. The problem was not that it failed in this regard — though of course it did — but that the tour was so successful in every other regard that it blinded the country’s governing elite to the reality of the post-war world.
Following the Queen’s visit to New Zealand, the High Commissioner, Sir Geoffrey Scoones, wrote that the Queen’s mere physical presence — in her full “regal splendour” — engrained the very idea of the Commonwealth in the minds of those outside Britain. In this Commonwealth, Sir Geoffrey wrote, Britain was just one of several kingdoms bound together in their allegiance to the Crown. Britain was no longer the ruler of an empire — just another country in one great family of nations. The diplomatic idea was that while the empire was no more, the Commonwealth could still protect Britain’s global influence.
The problem was that this wasn’t true. Sir Geoffrey’s idea was that Elizabeth was just as much the Queen of Australia as she was the Queen of England (or, more accurately, the UK). But this never really stood up to scrutiny. There was even an idea at this time that she might turn her court into a kind of travelling circus, moving from realm to realm, London to Ottawa, Canberra to Auckland, to show that she was Queen of all, favourite of none. This idea, of course, bumped up against reality. Elizabeth was primarily Queen of the home country, living in England and leaving the administration of her other realms to her representatives. Underneath the pomp of Britain’s changing imperial order lay the same old country underneath. Britain had entered a post-imperial world — it just did not entirely accept that yet.
Similar delusions were on display during the Queen’s trip to Australia. Like his counterpart in New Zealand, the high commissioner in Canberra, Sir Stephen Holmes, claimed Elizabeth’s presence had ensured the monarchy would remain a central part of Australia’s emerging national identity. Until this point, remember, you could be Australian and British, just as you could be English and British. Maintaining the royal link to the home country was seen as fundamentally important because Britain’s relationship with Australia was key to protecting the country’s global influence.
Once again, though, these ideas owed more to sentiment than cold-headed reality. Much as Australia’s prime minister at the time, Robert Menzies, considered himself “British to his bootstraps”, Australia was on its way to a separate identity with separate interests, not as one of the many “British peoples” around the world, as the Duke of Edinburgh put it, but as Australians, separate from Britain and increasingly dependent on the United States for its security. No matter how many royal tours of Australia the government paid for, this basic reality was not going to change.
Today, Charles more closely resembles the other Kings and Queens of Europe than his mother, just as Britain more closely resembles the other countries of Europe than a mini America. That Charles was only due to visit France and Germany on his first trip — and that even half of this has been cancelled — only reveals the extent to which we have become normal again.
Later this week, Charles will become the first foreign head of state since the Second World War to be welcomed with full military honours at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate. He will also become the first British monarch to address the Bundestag. Neither of these things should be dismissed. In today’s world, such things are far more important than some globetrotting tour that would do little to enhance our core national interest.
The point is this: being normal is good. The problem for Britain is not that we are normal, but that we have fallen behind normal in too many parts of our national life — from general levels of wealth to general levels of public service. Striving to be normal could be a liberating national mission, freeing us from the pressure to be anything more. To me, there is actually something quite uplifting about Charles attempting to make the most understated and mundane of foreign visits, quietly going about his business rather than aiming for some grand statement of global relevance or, worse, entering into some competition with his son for American approval. Touring the port of Hamburg, pointing at new green technology is just the kind of foreign visit Charles is good at.
Earlier this month, Charles’s Dutch counterpart, the King of the Netherlands, toured Slovakia at the head of a business delegation promoting his country’s economy. “The business delegation consists mostly of companies from the waste processing, recycling, soil remediation and circular construction sectors,” read an official press statement. This is the kind of kingship Britain now needs: waste processing promotion. Forget Walter Bagehot’s idea of theatrical “dignified” monarchy. We have no shortage of pomp and ceremony to keep us going each year. And it really doesn’t matter if all this excitement and reverence becomes a purely domestic affair. The Netherlands no longer has much of an international role, but it is extremely rich. I’d take that right now.
We seem to have forgotten that, once upon a time, being a Little Englander was a good thing, a term of abuse for progressives who did not particularly care for the British Empire and wanted more focus on the welfare of those in the home country. The opposite of a Little Englander was an imperialist. Today, that meaning has been lost. Being a Little Englander is now a derogatory term for provincial yokels, many of whom, ironically, are also accused of being in thrall to some kind of imperial nostalgia. How things change.
I say let’s bring back the original idea of Little Englandism. Let’s actively pursue smallness. Let’s concentrate on the condition of England, which, let’s face it, is not great. If it helps us to send Charles on waste management promotional tours of Slovakia, rather than journeys of fancy, so be it. Let’s make England little again.
Tom McTague is UnHerd’s Political Editor. He is the author of Betting The House: The Inside Story of the 2017 Election.
TomMcTague 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAmen to that! Let’s look to our own interests: let’s set the right level of immigration to supply our needs for high skilled labour while not overwhelming our housing supply, public services and infrastructure or sense of national identity; let’s focus on training our own kids to meet our demands for doctors, nurses, engineers etc, let’s focus our military spend on defending our island and our shipping; let’s keep our foreign aid budget and asylum offers to a minimum; let’s use nuclear (RR SMR), off shore wind and NS and fracked oil and gas to be energy independent; above all, let’s drop the importation of American work ideas and celebrate Britain’s wonderful past and future.
American Woke ideas (bloody spellchecker!)
Most Americans don’t want the woke ideas either.
Hey, we are doing our best to kill off the woke virus, but it would damn sure help if the Europeans would stop giving them ideas about stuff like national health systems and going green.
Keep that freaky little kid, Greta, home would ya.
Never mind that we take the brunt of the BS of being colonizers. Yuck
Most Americans don’t want the woke ideas either.
Hey, we are doing our best to kill off the woke virus, but it would damn sure help if the Europeans would stop giving them ideas about stuff like national health systems and going green.
Keep that freaky little kid, Greta, home would ya.
Never mind that we take the brunt of the BS of being colonizers. Yuck
Amen.
Wind Power is emphatically defenestrated recently by this Oxford Prof
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2023/03/Allison-Wind-energy.pdf
Net Zero is insane, solar is nothing more than a very useful adjunct to boats and motor homes, or possible the odd semi – BUT take away the subsidies and even the odd semi may find it uneconomical.
The UK, if it survives, should ditch the US poodle role for a start, and look to the rest of the world. We have enough representatives of it in our country to surely learn from them how NOT to upset them all by invading to bring democracy etc.
Personally, as an Englishman (of Irish heritage) I don’t care if the UK does survive. Little England is not something I would object to, in fact I would welcome it.
The problems we face are all down to those with bigger ideas – such as Remainers and the desire for a US of E or a return of the Holy Roman Empire and us a subservient state of one or other. Ironically for the EU, the Holy Roman Empire analogy was accurately described some years ago during the leave vote, IIRC, as neither Holy nor Roman – can’t remember if it was truly an empire as I was too busy laughing at the first two observations and how like the EU that was!
Perhaps we need a second Industrial Revolution now that Germany appears determined to de-industrialise. We still have a lot of coal under our feet.
You’ve paraphrased Voltaire there!
Without acknowledgment.
You’ve paraphrased Voltaire there!
Without acknowledgment.
But how do we defend our shipping? I assume you mean any ships moving goods to and from the UK, rather than only UK registered shipping, when it is on other seas?
Yes sorry – perhaps I should have said, protect our trade. Indeed it is much wider that shipping – infrastructure, underwater cables, anti-hacking, they rest of it.
Yes sorry – perhaps I should have said, protect our trade. Indeed it is much wider that shipping – infrastructure, underwater cables, anti-hacking, they rest of it.
80% of that will probably be in Starmer’s manifesto given it’s pretty broad slogans the vast majority would concur with.
Of course as we’ve found slogans don’t make for effective Policy implementation and things somewhat more complicated when one gets into actual delivery. But initial slogans will certainly get some cheers.
American Woke ideas (bloody spellchecker!)
Amen.
Wind Power is emphatically defenestrated recently by this Oxford Prof
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2023/03/Allison-Wind-energy.pdf
Net Zero is insane, solar is nothing more than a very useful adjunct to boats and motor homes, or possible the odd semi – BUT take away the subsidies and even the odd semi may find it uneconomical.
The UK, if it survives, should ditch the US poodle role for a start, and look to the rest of the world. We have enough representatives of it in our country to surely learn from them how NOT to upset them all by invading to bring democracy etc.
Personally, as an Englishman (of Irish heritage) I don’t care if the UK does survive. Little England is not something I would object to, in fact I would welcome it.
The problems we face are all down to those with bigger ideas – such as Remainers and the desire for a US of E or a return of the Holy Roman Empire and us a subservient state of one or other. Ironically for the EU, the Holy Roman Empire analogy was accurately described some years ago during the leave vote, IIRC, as neither Holy nor Roman – can’t remember if it was truly an empire as I was too busy laughing at the first two observations and how like the EU that was!
Perhaps we need a second Industrial Revolution now that Germany appears determined to de-industrialise. We still have a lot of coal under our feet.
But how do we defend our shipping? I assume you mean any ships moving goods to and from the UK, rather than only UK registered shipping, when it is on other seas?
80% of that will probably be in Starmer’s manifesto given it’s pretty broad slogans the vast majority would concur with.
Of course as we’ve found slogans don’t make for effective Policy implementation and things somewhat more complicated when one gets into actual delivery. But initial slogans will certainly get some cheers.
Amen to that! Let’s look to our own interests: let’s set the right level of immigration to supply our needs for high skilled labour while not overwhelming our housing supply, public services and infrastructure or sense of national identity; let’s focus on training our own kids to meet our demands for doctors, nurses, engineers etc, let’s focus our military spend on defending our island and our shipping; let’s keep our foreign aid budget and asylum offers to a minimum; let’s use nuclear (RR SMR), off shore wind and NS and fracked oil and gas to be energy independent; above all, let’s drop the importation of American work ideas and celebrate Britain’s wonderful past and future.
It seems a bit vain to try and say that the cancellation of half the European tour is anything to do with Britain’s standing. It is because France is in meltdown and it’s not safe for the King to go. That’s it.
I thought it was Macron’s head the Jacobins wanted, though I expect anyone with the Title King, foreign or not could be in danger.
The French do have form as they say regarding crowned heads. If I was Charles I would not go there. Gotta so admire the french though for not just supinely accepting everything.
I thought it was Macron’s head the Jacobins wanted, though I expect anyone with the Title King, foreign or not could be in danger.
The French do have form as they say regarding crowned heads. If I was Charles I would not go there. Gotta so admire the french though for not just supinely accepting everything.
It seems a bit vain to try and say that the cancellation of half the European tour is anything to do with Britain’s standing. It is because France is in meltdown and it’s not safe for the King to go. That’s it.
Now that the dust has settled, and it’s nearly all over bar the shouting, we can see that our late membership of the EU and its forbears was “like being shackled to a corpse “.
Have we so soon forgotten the old adage “charity begins at home?”
Now that the dust has settled, and it’s nearly all over bar the shouting, we can see that our late membership of the EU and its forbears was “like being shackled to a corpse “.
Have we so soon forgotten the old adage “charity begins at home?”
I think the article’s main argument is what’s called making a virtue out of necessity, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Most English Brexiteers wanted it rather than it being a necessity. Many were fed up of being the poodle of the US AND the EU. As for the Commonwealth, fine, but we couldn’t give a toss who runs that, as long as we are free of it trying to control us.
Then re the UK, the irony of the 85% of it being in thrall to the other 15% now rankles exceedingly. Brexit in my opinion was the answer to the West Lothian question that our great leaders in Westminster refused to answer, so we answered it in spades. The fact that Sunak has hamstrung it won’t matter. The politics of the UK has changed, the ‘Red Wall’ seats in my opinion have replaced the 10% or so swinging voters who decided elections. Now it will be the Red Wall seats.
IF they return to Labour, Labour win, if they stick with Conservative, they win. IF they turn to The Reform party, then Brexit is back on track and will become unstoppable because one of Labour and Tory, maybe both, will then implode. My odds are that Labour not winining the next GE will mean the end of them, because they are in thrall to the insanity of the Woke. Tories are infected but not terminally so, I suspect Labour are.
Most English Brexiteers wanted it rather than it being a necessity. Many were fed up of being the poodle of the US AND the EU. As for the Commonwealth, fine, but we couldn’t give a toss who runs that, as long as we are free of it trying to control us.
Then re the UK, the irony of the 85% of it being in thrall to the other 15% now rankles exceedingly. Brexit in my opinion was the answer to the West Lothian question that our great leaders in Westminster refused to answer, so we answered it in spades. The fact that Sunak has hamstrung it won’t matter. The politics of the UK has changed, the ‘Red Wall’ seats in my opinion have replaced the 10% or so swinging voters who decided elections. Now it will be the Red Wall seats.
IF they return to Labour, Labour win, if they stick with Conservative, they win. IF they turn to The Reform party, then Brexit is back on track and will become unstoppable because one of Labour and Tory, maybe both, will then implode. My odds are that Labour not winining the next GE will mean the end of them, because they are in thrall to the insanity of the Woke. Tories are infected but not terminally so, I suspect Labour are.
I think the article’s main argument is what’s called making a virtue out of necessity, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
It’s actually a well-argued piece ended with an almost poetic flourish, so well done to the author there. There is one mistake in the above where it draws a distinction between the role of the Queen in the UK vs as head of state in commonwealth nations by reference to delegation to her representatives: this is equally true in the UK as anywhere else, so the distinction doesn’t exist.
Other than that, I’d remark that Britain does need and deserve a period of going back to the basics and fixing things which are broken instead of pretending it’s a major military power and trying to fix the world instead, but I suspect that this ambition might be more difficult than it sounds.
Most of our political class doesn’t really believe that the most pressing issues of the day are trans-rights, climate change and trigger warnings for instance, but they nonetheless focus on such things because they can at least be seen as doing something effective about them, unlike the neuralgic problems of high immigration, low productivity, debt addiction, housing prices and welfare dependency. These are the problems that really need fixing but they are hard to fix, in fact nobody knows how to solve them without measures that will simply lose their party the next election if they are honest and/or foolhardy enough to propose the measures in question.
So, by all means let’s have this debate, but let’s not pretend it’s one with easy answers.
The Tory administration do not want to lower house prices (which would happen) because their voters are mostly of my generation (the ones that didn’t fade away) and above. These are mostly property owners as they were the lucky generation and they are NOT going to accept losing lots of money,even only on paper,through low house prices even if it means their grandkids can then afford to start to buy a house. But even more significant than that,pretty much all the Tory MPs are property owners,some significantly so and they don’t intend to devalue their assets. Sadly,Labour have got the message and will spout a lot of hot air but not do anything either. I know this because I wrote to my (labour) MP on this and several issues for clarification and the reply while worded politely and judiciously defo had the sub-text that we intend to keep on with ….whatever as it’s for your convenience and ease.
Ie digital id,road pricing etc so I’ve got a feeling they might not be covering Englands green and pleasant land with vast,ugly housing estates no one except Albanian pimps wants to live in.
The Tory administration do not want to lower house prices (which would happen) because their voters are mostly of my generation (the ones that didn’t fade away) and above. These are mostly property owners as they were the lucky generation and they are NOT going to accept losing lots of money,even only on paper,through low house prices even if it means their grandkids can then afford to start to buy a house. But even more significant than that,pretty much all the Tory MPs are property owners,some significantly so and they don’t intend to devalue their assets. Sadly,Labour have got the message and will spout a lot of hot air but not do anything either. I know this because I wrote to my (labour) MP on this and several issues for clarification and the reply while worded politely and judiciously defo had the sub-text that we intend to keep on with ….whatever as it’s for your convenience and ease.
Ie digital id,road pricing etc so I’ve got a feeling they might not be covering Englands green and pleasant land with vast,ugly housing estates no one except Albanian pimps wants to live in.
It’s actually a well-argued piece ended with an almost poetic flourish, so well done to the author there. There is one mistake in the above where it draws a distinction between the role of the Queen in the UK vs as head of state in commonwealth nations by reference to delegation to her representatives: this is equally true in the UK as anywhere else, so the distinction doesn’t exist.
Other than that, I’d remark that Britain does need and deserve a period of going back to the basics and fixing things which are broken instead of pretending it’s a major military power and trying to fix the world instead, but I suspect that this ambition might be more difficult than it sounds.
Most of our political class doesn’t really believe that the most pressing issues of the day are trans-rights, climate change and trigger warnings for instance, but they nonetheless focus on such things because they can at least be seen as doing something effective about them, unlike the neuralgic problems of high immigration, low productivity, debt addiction, housing prices and welfare dependency. These are the problems that really need fixing but they are hard to fix, in fact nobody knows how to solve them without measures that will simply lose their party the next election if they are honest and/or foolhardy enough to propose the measures in question.
So, by all means let’s have this debate, but let’s not pretend it’s one with easy answers.
Totally agree. Instead of attempting to be great, let us be normal and actually work.
Totally agree. Instead of attempting to be great, let us be normal and actually work.
“Once again, though, these ideas owed more to sentiment than cold-headed reality.”
On the contrary, the principle that all citizens of Empire/Commonwealth countries were also British citizens underpinned the UK’s immigration policies in the 50’s and early 60’s.
… which would lead to the conclusive defeat in 1964-5 of a Labour government attempting to fight an election on that basis, and immigration controls which would last for 35 years…
From which we received a lot of good, honest & hard-working people who came here:-
a) To help out the mother country during & after the war years.
b) To improve themselves & their children’s futures.
In other words, on a quid pro quo basis NOT just to grab what they could get whilst giving nothing in return like more recent immigrants/ would be immigrants. These immigrants from the Commonwealth WERE British citizens & very proud of it too!
Big mistake,road to hell paved with good intentions, etc
… which would lead to the conclusive defeat in 1964-5 of a Labour government attempting to fight an election on that basis, and immigration controls which would last for 35 years…
From which we received a lot of good, honest & hard-working people who came here:-
a) To help out the mother country during & after the war years.
b) To improve themselves & their children’s futures.
In other words, on a quid pro quo basis NOT just to grab what they could get whilst giving nothing in return like more recent immigrants/ would be immigrants. These immigrants from the Commonwealth WERE British citizens & very proud of it too!
Big mistake,road to hell paved with good intentions, etc
“Once again, though, these ideas owed more to sentiment than cold-headed reality.”
On the contrary, the principle that all citizens of Empire/Commonwealth countries were also British citizens underpinned the UK’s immigration policies in the 50’s and early 60’s.
If we agree to give up on the quest for national importance would we necessarily transfer enough attention to repairing potholes, building houses and having things that work, as the norm.
There is the question that if the money spent on world tours, coronations, royal funerals etc were spent on filling potholes etc would the world be a better place to live in?
There must be some fundamental economic rule that says that money wasted on vanity projects can never be used for good purposes, but must be wasted in perpetuity.
No.
There is the question that if the money spent on world tours, coronations, royal funerals etc were spent on filling potholes etc would the world be a better place to live in?
There must be some fundamental economic rule that says that money wasted on vanity projects can never be used for good purposes, but must be wasted in perpetuity.
No.
If we agree to give up on the quest for national importance would we necessarily transfer enough attention to repairing potholes, building houses and having things that work, as the norm.
England is part of The United Kingdom – albeit 85% of it. Whilst there could be some merit in an English parliament – We should not forget in terms of The UK – we are as one (at least for the Moment) – England throwing too
Much weight around (even tho it is 85%) will not help The UK in the medium/long term
Much of the rest of this article recounts a series of events and attempts to attach “the reasons” for them.
I for one am all in favour of GLOBAL UK. Its true Netherlands has little international clout these days. of The EU countries – only Germany (accounting for 25% of EU) does in reality (albeit France thinks it does)
The Netherlands does, however, have a stranglehold on global imports. Much of what enters the EU comes through Rotterdam.
Perhaps, but does that exersise global clout? I doubt it – even if it did, more & more influence will transfer to The EU in any case.
Perhaps, but does that exersise global clout? I doubt it – even if it did, more & more influence will transfer to The EU in any case.
Oooops! – should read ”England throwing too much weight around……”.(etc.,)
France is still a member of the Security Council though.
Very true – until its forced to give its seat up in favour of The EU – or as an alternate, become a puppet on the Council for The EU (aka Germany)
And has “The Bomb”.
Durz mah berm look beeg in zees?
Nein!
Nein!
as do an frighteningly increasing number!
Durz mah berm look beeg in zees?
as do an frighteningly increasing number!
Very true – until its forced to give its seat up in favour of The EU – or as an alternate, become a puppet on the Council for The EU (aka Germany)
And has “The Bomb”.
The Netherlands has no clout – it is run by the EU, which is why there is a civil uprising by the Farmers. Nexit anyone?
The EU is now so beset by problems it strikes me as inevitable it will start to lose more states. Germany’s ‘energy nightmare’ leading to its de-industrialisation is going to have catastrophic consequences for the EU and the Euro. That General Winter failed to do it for Russia this winter (i.e. the EU survived the winter without running out of gas because it was mild) isn’t the end. The requirement for alternative sources of gas, so probably LNG and the Net Zero insanity that has restricted the Western sourced supplies of it means the EU is committed to a very expensive energy source. The US has not yet sufficient production to meet home and EU demands.
Ironically the non-russian gas the EU gets from Azerbaijan not Russian is gas made available because the supplier replaces it with Russian gas!
https://eurasianet.org/azerbaijans-russian-gas-deal-raises-uncomfortable-questions-for-europe
It appears that at every turn the EU chooses the wrong option. Germany & Italy have basically overturned the ‘ban ICE vehicles by 2035
Italy has basically banned the ‘hidden’ addition of insect protein to flours and foods, any such addition has to be recorded in very large (if the reports I read are true) warnings. I trust the UK Government is going to tell the EU that we are not going to accept any insect protein adulterated imports into the UK via NI or anywhere else.
The UK, if we could remove our Europhile elites in Parliament and in every Quango and the Civil Service, would thrive and perhaps we could become the focal point for what I expect will be multiple exiting countries from the EU. The world is changing and assuming Biden doesn’t cause WW3 and it go Nuclear, it could be a far better world in the long run.
The Netherlands is becoming increasingly small-minded. Right now it’s little more than a nation of bureaucrats charged to manage the less complicit members of their society. Perhaps this will change with the ascendancy of the BoerBurgerBeweging party.
The Netherlands is becoming increasingly small-minded. Right now it’s little more than a nation of bureaucrats charged to manage the less complicit members of their society. Perhaps this will change with the ascendancy of the BoerBurgerBeweging party.
The Netherlands does, however, have a stranglehold on global imports. Much of what enters the EU comes through Rotterdam.
Oooops! – should read ”England throwing too much weight around……”.(etc.,)
France is still a member of the Security Council though.
The Netherlands has no clout – it is run by the EU, which is why there is a civil uprising by the Farmers. Nexit anyone?
The EU is now so beset by problems it strikes me as inevitable it will start to lose more states. Germany’s ‘energy nightmare’ leading to its de-industrialisation is going to have catastrophic consequences for the EU and the Euro. That General Winter failed to do it for Russia this winter (i.e. the EU survived the winter without running out of gas because it was mild) isn’t the end. The requirement for alternative sources of gas, so probably LNG and the Net Zero insanity that has restricted the Western sourced supplies of it means the EU is committed to a very expensive energy source. The US has not yet sufficient production to meet home and EU demands.
Ironically the non-russian gas the EU gets from Azerbaijan not Russian is gas made available because the supplier replaces it with Russian gas!
https://eurasianet.org/azerbaijans-russian-gas-deal-raises-uncomfortable-questions-for-europe
It appears that at every turn the EU chooses the wrong option. Germany & Italy have basically overturned the ‘ban ICE vehicles by 2035
Italy has basically banned the ‘hidden’ addition of insect protein to flours and foods, any such addition has to be recorded in very large (if the reports I read are true) warnings. I trust the UK Government is going to tell the EU that we are not going to accept any insect protein adulterated imports into the UK via NI or anywhere else.
The UK, if we could remove our Europhile elites in Parliament and in every Quango and the Civil Service, would thrive and perhaps we could become the focal point for what I expect will be multiple exiting countries from the EU. The world is changing and assuming Biden doesn’t cause WW3 and it go Nuclear, it could be a far better world in the long run.
England is part of The United Kingdom – albeit 85% of it. Whilst there could be some merit in an English parliament – We should not forget in terms of The UK – we are as one (at least for the Moment) – England throwing too
Much weight around (even tho it is 85%) will not help The UK in the medium/long term
Much of the rest of this article recounts a series of events and attempts to attach “the reasons” for them.
I for one am all in favour of GLOBAL UK. Its true Netherlands has little international clout these days. of The EU countries – only Germany (accounting for 25% of EU) does in reality (albeit France thinks it does)
The reason Australia works as a constitutional monarchy is because of the monarch’s absence, not his or her presence.
Baseless assertion, so I will come up with one of my own: total rubbish. The total absence of our monarch allows the republican element to pretend the monarchy is an irrelevancy and undermine it at every opportunity. Far from being the reason Australia “works” as a constitutional monarchy, the invisibility of the monarch is the main reason for its vulnerability.
Baseless assertion, so I will come up with one of my own: total rubbish. The total absence of our monarch allows the republican element to pretend the monarchy is an irrelevancy and undermine it at every opportunity. Far from being the reason Australia “works” as a constitutional monarchy, the invisibility of the monarch is the main reason for its vulnerability.
The reason Australia works as a constitutional monarchy is because of the monarch’s absence, not his or her presence.
Agree entirely: how do we become Sweden, having once bestrode the earth should be the study of our political classes? Not necessarily social democrat Sweden – though that wouldn’t be a bad thing – but the country that went from European dominance to self-sufficient success, not autarkic or isolationist, but not reliant on delusions of grandeur either.
I loved this. As usual taking everything in reference to ME because I’m that sort of person,I think we’re called Narcissists,I have come to think that being just ordinary should be much more celebrated and validated than it is. In the last few decades,say from the 1960s the idea of being an “outstanding individual” has been the life idea we were all outwardly and subliminally mind trained to go for,and a lot of people made it,and the ones who didn’t either suffered a dreadful sense of failure or happily discovered they really liked obscure,ordinary life.
In my case – ME again- aged 14 I got that my love of making cakes and washing up and sewing patchwork was totally wrong,uncool and not what hot chicks were supposed to be like.,so regretfully I tried to be the correct kind of person,little did I know then,but do now,that most of my peers were also pretending to be THAT PERSON because everyone likes to fit in especially young people. If the prevailing meme is to be an authority questioning rebel they will conform,ha ha ha, usually because wearing a few piercings and tattoos gets you by,you don’t actually have to BE truculent.
Taking it back to King Charles,he is King of Great Britain,and he would still be King of Scotland independently if they left,and I wish they would. I would think that is glorious enough. And for most of history we felt a huge affinity for the Germans (our cousins) and hugely admired their culture. It was the Frenchies was our traditional enemies always. So revolting those paysans!
We live in our tiny goldfish bowl with the voices on the radio chuntering on about who said what but in reality we are mice squeaking in the corner. A lot of countries dont give a fig what we think or say,politically I mean. Even the audacity and impudence of the migrants shows how utterly lacking in influence and moral authority we are.
Yes,let’s enjoy being ordinary. It’s a nice and pleasant way to live.
I loved this. As usual taking everything in reference to ME because I’m that sort of person,I think we’re called Narcissists,I have come to think that being just ordinary should be much more celebrated and validated than it is. In the last few decades,say from the 1960s the idea of being an “outstanding individual” has been the life idea we were all outwardly and subliminally mind trained to go for,and a lot of people made it,and the ones who didn’t either suffered a dreadful sense of failure or happily discovered they really liked obscure,ordinary life.
In my case – ME again- aged 14 I got that my love of making cakes and washing up and sewing patchwork was totally wrong,uncool and not what hot chicks were supposed to be like.,so regretfully I tried to be the correct kind of person,little did I know then,but do now,that most of my peers were also pretending to be THAT PERSON because everyone likes to fit in especially young people. If the prevailing meme is to be an authority questioning rebel they will conform,ha ha ha, usually because wearing a few piercings and tattoos gets you by,you don’t actually have to BE truculent.
Taking it back to King Charles,he is King of Great Britain,and he would still be King of Scotland independently if they left,and I wish they would. I would think that is glorious enough. And for most of history we felt a huge affinity for the Germans (our cousins) and hugely admired their culture. It was the Frenchies was our traditional enemies always. So revolting those paysans!
We live in our tiny goldfish bowl with the voices on the radio chuntering on about who said what but in reality we are mice squeaking in the corner. A lot of countries dont give a fig what we think or say,politically I mean. Even the audacity and impudence of the migrants shows how utterly lacking in influence and moral authority we are.
Yes,let’s enjoy being ordinary. It’s a nice and pleasant way to live.
Perhaps King Charles ought to emphasize the project in which his leadership is admirable, productive and appreciated by by the residents: Poundbury.
Charles could spend his entire reign emphasizing the quality of life, in Britain, rather than. . . the usual, superfluous royal stuff, or how rich and important Brits are thought to be throughout the world.
Spending time in, and drawing public interest to Poundbury would give the King a project where he could demonstrate, in real time, in a real way, what “Quality” of Life really is in this 21st-century.
He might even connect the Poundbury project to timely, appropriate environmental projects such as appropriate technology, soil conservation and improvement, sustainability and quality of life.
There is a little nobility in all of us, when it comes to assigning quality-of-life sensibilities to all subjects of His Majesty’s realm. Draw out the Nobility in all of us, as exemplified by the First Royal.
The points you make in the 1st half, presumably to make the second half make sense, are just just your opinion, or more simply LIES. Politicos love lies, journalists are supposed to expose them; they did once anyway.
The first half of your argument relies on your first-hand observations, which are merely your opinions or, to put it more bluntly, LIES. Politicians enjoy telling lies, but journalists are supposed to call them out; formerly they did. basketball stars
Not any more. They’ve been brought under control. It’s my theory that AIDS was the first attempt at a pandemic scuppered by the can do, positive,upbeat take the media gave it right away. Keep on hugging that sick person,don’t isolate and reject them,our wonderful scientists will soon find a cure. So that told THEM who ever they are,that the media needed bringing under control. Took them just over 30 years to do it. Not just me,I saw an interview with the great,but now old John Pilger and he said this too,but in different words than me,of course.
The first half of your argument relies on your first-hand observations, which are merely your opinions or, to put it more bluntly, LIES. Politicians enjoy telling lies, but journalists are supposed to call them out; formerly they did. basketball stars
Not any more. They’ve been brought under control. It’s my theory that AIDS was the first attempt at a pandemic scuppered by the can do, positive,upbeat take the media gave it right away. Keep on hugging that sick person,don’t isolate and reject them,our wonderful scientists will soon find a cure. So that told THEM who ever they are,that the media needed bringing under control. Took them just over 30 years to do it. Not just me,I saw an interview with the great,but now old John Pilger and he said this too,but in different words than me,of course.
The points you make in the 1st half, presumably to make the second half make sense, are just just your opinion, or more simply LIES. Politicos love lies, journalists are supposed to expose them; they did once anyway.
The sub-title to this piece is wrong : we (i.e. GB) do not need the monarch to go on a global tour, but Charles desperately needs to do so in order to bask in the dubious adoration of the curious natives and other lower orders abroad, in order to bolster his fragile ego and prove (if only to himself – no-one else with think so) that he is in the same league as his late mother.
In fact, the trip to France being cancelled was a blessing in disguise for this country – what self-respecting republican Frenchman would be impressed by Charles and Camilla? Amused, perhaps, but not impressed.
Imagine if Charles had been killed in Paris by a random shot. After the Dianna fiasco of 1997, that would have been just TOO much.
Apples and oranges. Diana was a private citizen with no official status :Charles is titular head of state.
Do you think that there are many random shots flying around in Paris? Inside Versailles? The risk would only be significant if he went on a “look at me I’m special” walkabout – and why would he do that? (Actually I know why he would do that – because he’s ‘special’)
When foreign heads of state visit the UK they tend not to wander the streets meeting and greeting the plebs, at least I don’t recall any important ones (eg from USA or China) doing that. Frankly, I don’t remember any other state visits to the UK mainly because I don’t actually care who is or is not a head of state in some foreign country, and I can’t really imagine why anyone would care who is head of state of the UK
or would want to gawp at them in the street (though of course people love a circus – or a freak show.)
If the “Islamic nutters” had been as well organised as their 12th century predecessors, the famed ‘Assassins”, then Charle’s visit would have offered an ideal opportunity for a vey high profile hit, would it not?
Spot on.
Spot on.
If the “Islamic nutters” had been as well organised as their 12th century predecessors, the famed ‘Assassins”, then Charle’s visit would have offered an ideal opportunity for a vey high profile hit, would it not?
Apples and oranges. Diana was a private citizen with no official status :Charles is titular head of state.
Do you think that there are many random shots flying around in Paris? Inside Versailles? The risk would only be significant if he went on a “look at me I’m special” walkabout – and why would he do that? (Actually I know why he would do that – because he’s ‘special’)
When foreign heads of state visit the UK they tend not to wander the streets meeting and greeting the plebs, at least I don’t recall any important ones (eg from USA or China) doing that. Frankly, I don’t remember any other state visits to the UK mainly because I don’t actually care who is or is not a head of state in some foreign country, and I can’t really imagine why anyone would care who is head of state of the UK
or would want to gawp at them in the street (though of course people love a circus – or a freak show.)
Imagine if Charles had been killed in Paris by a random shot. After the Dianna fiasco of 1997, that would have been just TOO much.
The sub-title to this piece is wrong : we (i.e. GB) do not need the monarch to go on a global tour, but Charles desperately needs to do so in order to bask in the dubious adoration of the curious natives and other lower orders abroad, in order to bolster his fragile ego and prove (if only to himself – no-one else with think so) that he is in the same league as his late mother.
In fact, the trip to France being cancelled was a blessing in disguise for this country – what self-respecting republican Frenchman would be impressed by Charles and Camilla? Amused, perhaps, but not impressed.
After all the Brexit bombast of Global Britain quite noticeable the Monarchs first two visits were to the centres of European power. Another signal being sent that we are slowly emerging from our spasm of nostalgia back to realpolitik, and who better to help lead that.
Concur with the general theme of the Article – ‘let’s get real about our place in the world, we’ve still many things to be v proud of and offer soft forms of power but some humility and good sense must be out-front too’ etc.
The one thing I’d debate further is the paradox that Little Englanders (a generalisation of course) also seemed to lead on the consumption of Global Britain rhetoric. The contradiction always appeared/s to have a rose tinted element of nostalgia and over-simplification of the position of the nation state as it’s energy source.
Why was the vote to leave a spasm of nostalgia? I never heard a single leave voter mention the (long gone) empire as a reason for voting to break away from the EU except in the imaginations of remain voters.
Immigration, the desire for laws to be set by domestically elected MPs and an end to giving billions of pounds annually to an organisation whose own accountants refuse to sign off their books (even before the recent Qatar based corruption) were the reasons I heard, as was wanting to trade with the rest of the world rather than just a protectionist bloc
Absolutely my experience also – plus of course a generalised sense among Leavers that this was going to be the first (and possibly last) vote for a long while in which a vote would actually count. A vast majority of the country live in constituencies in which GE and Council votes might as well be hereditary for all the change they’ve made over the last thirty years.
When I lived back home I genuinely don’t think it mattered which way I voted, they were all meaningless as the seat had been safely Tory since before I was born. I now live in NZ and whilst the system isn’t perfect with some list MPs not being directly accountable to the electorate, at least the votes do count towards the overall makeup of parliament
Things may have changed, we will soon see. Rather than a nationwide 10% swing vote that determined Governments, now it may be the swathe of Red Wall seats will determine Governments AND the future direction of English politics. I hope so, and I really hope the Red Wall ceases to be Dark Blue, refuses to return to being Red, ignores Green and Yellow and prompts for the light blue of Reform.
Let’s hope so, it’s our last chance!
Let’s hope so, it’s our last chance!
Things may have changed, we will soon see. Rather than a nationwide 10% swing vote that determined Governments, now it may be the swathe of Red Wall seats will determine Governments AND the future direction of English politics. I hope so, and I really hope the Red Wall ceases to be Dark Blue, refuses to return to being Red, ignores Green and Yellow and prompts for the light blue of Reform.
When I lived back home I genuinely don’t think it mattered which way I voted, they were all meaningless as the seat had been safely Tory since before I was born. I now live in NZ and whilst the system isn’t perfect with some list MPs not being directly accountable to the electorate, at least the votes do count towards the overall makeup of parliament
Exactly right! Just because you don’t want to be 1/28th of a supranational state doesn’t mean you want to revive another long dead supranational state.
Fair question – why do I think Brexit was in part of spasm of nostalgia?
Brexit was a choice between status quo or returning to what UK looked like before joining EEC in 73. Rare example of giving voters an option to go ‘back to the past’ and explicitly sold as such. Common phrase used was “take back control” – implicit appeal to the idea of returning the UK to what it looked like before joined EEC. Much was about UK’s “loss of sovereignty,” with the idea that the UK’s sovereignty be “regained” and a halcyon past before the UK was overloaded by EU bureaucracy and European immigrants.
These calls for ‘returning to the past’ were directed at a variety of voters – but arguably 4 key categories – i) Imperialist nostalgists – diminishing number but more prevalent in older cohort; ii) Racially concerned – invoking a Britain before mass immigration would encourage people to vote for leaving the EU iii) Non-racist and non-imperialist nationalists – advocates of nationalism commonly believe in the concept of a ‘golden age’ of the nation, such that their goal is to return their nation to its glorious past and revive it from its slumber. Indeed, for many British nationalists the golden age is World War II ‘ we stood alone’ etc; iv) And fourthly Older voters. Brexit exposed a generational split in the UK. Age was one of the most important correlates of voting Leave. They had a rare chance to vote to return to the UK of yesteryear, which in some cases provoked nostalgia not only for what the UK looked like before the EU but also what they/we looked like. Mixing up happy memories of one’s youth with memories of society as whole is not uncommon.
Now Nostalgia was not the only driver and there were other reasons. Many of the more neo-liberal advocates saw the opportunity for a Singapore-on-Thames type outcome. Therein though sowing one of the primary Brexit contradictions – this outcome runs against the nostalgia that sub-consciously/consciously drive others. Trying to square this much the story of the last 7 years.
Anyone who had lived through the early 1970s has little desire to return to that time. Remember, most of those who voted to leave in 2016 voted to remain in 1975 – why the change of heart?. All that had happened was that there was disillusionment about what was hoped to be a great move toward a European moment, and some economic improvement in the UK. Neither happened, in fact the UK got practically nothing economically worthwhile and the EU, the replacement for the EEC, turned out to be a nightmare, autocratic, bureaucracy. There was no nostalgia on my part, I was actually sad that it all ended up as it did; I, perhaps foolishly, hoped for and expected better.
The 1975 vote was as dogged by lies as our original entry. Heath suppressed what he knew to be the ultimate aim of the then EEC to become a super-state where, according to a foreign office report that Heath suppressed, ‘We’d have less freedom than a State in the USA”
Peter Hitchens BBC 4 documentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY_BgnZdwko
12:31 minutes in.
National Archives
AEO(F)(70)5 9th Nov 1970
Treasury Officials Report Heath Kept Secret for 30 years. Britain could end up being less independent than a state in the USA
The 1975 vote was as dogged by lies as our original entry. Heath suppressed what he knew to be the ultimate aim of the then EEC to become a super-state where, according to a foreign office report that Heath suppressed, ‘We’d have less freedom than a State in the USA”
Peter Hitchens BBC 4 documentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY_BgnZdwko
12:31 minutes in.
National Archives
AEO(F)(70)5 9th Nov 1970
Treasury Officials Report Heath Kept Secret for 30 years. Britain could end up being less independent than a state in the USA
You’re vastly overthinking this. I voted Leave because the EU is a corrupt and anti-democratic cesspit, which promotes the interests of multinational corporations and its own bureaucratic elites to the detriment of the populations of its member states. It’s not complicated.
No it wasn’t, it was a choice between the despair of having been run by an elite who were useless, so much so they wanted comfort in being told what to do by the EU OR the freedom to get an elite who chose what we wanted, and where we wanted to go.
IF we are to be a state in a United States – better we join the US of A not the US of E. In the US of A we would become potentially the most powerful state they have. After all, not many a state has its own Army, Air Force and 2 aircraft carriers. 😉
Though I’d prefer to take up a Neutral stance, leave NATO – let Sweden and Finland take our place in that, and we take theirs in a neutral zone. The get on and trade with anyone anywhere and stop being a poodle of the US as well.
What about our BOMB?
Ah, yes, even better! We could then always win the US Presidency by the simple expedient of pointing out that IF the UK candidate wasn’t elected then we’d still have a Senator or someone over here with their finger on a button!
I’m sure Mr Watson would agree, there could be no better way of regaining an empire. We’d get the Americas back for a start, then we could pressure Canada and bin Trudeau, and a hint in Australia’s ear that our nuclear umbrella might not be big enougt unless they chose to rejoin the new British Empire.- Gosh, I”m already realising it was an even more brilliant move voting to leave the EU that my Little Englander brain had imagined! 😉
Ah, yes, even better! We could then always win the US Presidency by the simple expedient of pointing out that IF the UK candidate wasn’t elected then we’d still have a Senator or someone over here with their finger on a button!
I’m sure Mr Watson would agree, there could be no better way of regaining an empire. We’d get the Americas back for a start, then we could pressure Canada and bin Trudeau, and a hint in Australia’s ear that our nuclear umbrella might not be big enougt unless they chose to rejoin the new British Empire.- Gosh, I”m already realising it was an even more brilliant move voting to leave the EU that my Little Englander brain had imagined! 😉
The USA political system has various incompatible features with the UK tradition (and tradition always exists for a reason). First is the directly-elected President, who has both authority and some powers, which is not the case in the UK with the Prime Minister. The latter has ‘powers’ but gets their authority from the King (who gets his from ‘God’), who has no power, exceptions being in times of war and plague where decisions require to be fast-tracked – the ”Royal Prerogative in Parliament’.). Then there’s the US ‘separation of powers’ between Church and State. The Church in the UK, in its various forms, is a State Church (with representatives in the Lords). The King is head of the various forms of the state Church in the UK.
The President of the US is to some extent the same as an absolute monarch, derived from the French tradition (every Frenchman, e.g. Trudeau in Canada, yearns to be an absolute monarch, combining both power and authority). Then there is the ‘state system’ in the US, which does not occur in the UK, where none of the constituent ‘countries’ has a physical land border – the only one being with a foreign (in my view enemy) state i.e. ‘Ireland’.
In this the globalist US is far more like the EU than Britain (the EU is a conglomeration of subjected ‘nationalist’ states not a true ‘Union’ at all. In Scotland and Wales Blair’s stupid idea was basically to create effective ‘state’ borders within the UK). In my view we’re better off on our own, and fixing what Brexit was meant to fix, the attrition suffered by whole-UK laws (based on the Old Testament model) and being gradually replaced by positive ‘human rights’ laws, which are both selective and arbitrary, and which are also, in theory, limitless. Some fightback has occurred but it’s patchy and people’s reasons are often confused, switching between ‘economic’ and ‘legal’ policies. The UK is first and foremost a legal joint-monarchic state, not an economic one, hence its actual name.
Easily solved, the US can revert to a UK colony. 😉
Easily solved, the US can revert to a UK colony. 😉
Dougie and Bill – I would have said a bit of both of your reasons and I couldn’t agree to all. I thought – lets get out before we get any further into the USofE and then decide, bit-by-bit what we want to be and do. I don’t remember where I got the notion but I reckoned that Germany wanted our seat on the UN Security Council and some say how our “Bomb” was to be deployed, etc. With the forthcoming majority-voting in the EU that would have been easy for them to twist economic arms plus the French would be happy to support the Germans while they kept theirs.
Charles – What about it. The Germans would produce a new delivery system. Remember they produced the original ballistic missile.
What about our BOMB?
The USA political system has various incompatible features with the UK tradition (and tradition always exists for a reason). First is the directly-elected President, who has both authority and some powers, which is not the case in the UK with the Prime Minister. The latter has ‘powers’ but gets their authority from the King (who gets his from ‘God’), who has no power, exceptions being in times of war and plague where decisions require to be fast-tracked – the ”Royal Prerogative in Parliament’.). Then there’s the US ‘separation of powers’ between Church and State. The Church in the UK, in its various forms, is a State Church (with representatives in the Lords). The King is head of the various forms of the state Church in the UK.
The President of the US is to some extent the same as an absolute monarch, derived from the French tradition (every Frenchman, e.g. Trudeau in Canada, yearns to be an absolute monarch, combining both power and authority). Then there is the ‘state system’ in the US, which does not occur in the UK, where none of the constituent ‘countries’ has a physical land border – the only one being with a foreign (in my view enemy) state i.e. ‘Ireland’.
In this the globalist US is far more like the EU than Britain (the EU is a conglomeration of subjected ‘nationalist’ states not a true ‘Union’ at all. In Scotland and Wales Blair’s stupid idea was basically to create effective ‘state’ borders within the UK). In my view we’re better off on our own, and fixing what Brexit was meant to fix, the attrition suffered by whole-UK laws (based on the Old Testament model) and being gradually replaced by positive ‘human rights’ laws, which are both selective and arbitrary, and which are also, in theory, limitless. Some fightback has occurred but it’s patchy and people’s reasons are often confused, switching between ‘economic’ and ‘legal’ policies. The UK is first and foremost a legal joint-monarchic state, not an economic one, hence its actual name.
Dougie and Bill – I would have said a bit of both of your reasons and I couldn’t agree to all. I thought – lets get out before we get any further into the USofE and then decide, bit-by-bit what we want to be and do. I don’t remember where I got the notion but I reckoned that Germany wanted our seat on the UN Security Council and some say how our “Bomb” was to be deployed, etc. With the forthcoming majority-voting in the EU that would have been easy for them to twist economic arms plus the French would be happy to support the Germans while they kept theirs.
Charles – What about it. The Germans would produce a new delivery system. Remember they produced the original ballistic missile.
Anyone who had lived through the early 1970s has little desire to return to that time. Remember, most of those who voted to leave in 2016 voted to remain in 1975 – why the change of heart?. All that had happened was that there was disillusionment about what was hoped to be a great move toward a European moment, and some economic improvement in the UK. Neither happened, in fact the UK got practically nothing economically worthwhile and the EU, the replacement for the EEC, turned out to be a nightmare, autocratic, bureaucracy. There was no nostalgia on my part, I was actually sad that it all ended up as it did; I, perhaps foolishly, hoped for and expected better.
You’re vastly overthinking this. I voted Leave because the EU is a corrupt and anti-democratic cesspit, which promotes the interests of multinational corporations and its own bureaucratic elites to the detriment of the populations of its member states. It’s not complicated.
No it wasn’t, it was a choice between the despair of having been run by an elite who were useless, so much so they wanted comfort in being told what to do by the EU OR the freedom to get an elite who chose what we wanted, and where we wanted to go.
IF we are to be a state in a United States – better we join the US of A not the US of E. In the US of A we would become potentially the most powerful state they have. After all, not many a state has its own Army, Air Force and 2 aircraft carriers. 😉
Though I’d prefer to take up a Neutral stance, leave NATO – let Sweden and Finland take our place in that, and we take theirs in a neutral zone. The get on and trade with anyone anywhere and stop being a poodle of the US as well.
Absolutely my experience also – plus of course a generalised sense among Leavers that this was going to be the first (and possibly last) vote for a long while in which a vote would actually count. A vast majority of the country live in constituencies in which GE and Council votes might as well be hereditary for all the change they’ve made over the last thirty years.
Exactly right! Just because you don’t want to be 1/28th of a supranational state doesn’t mean you want to revive another long dead supranational state.
Fair question – why do I think Brexit was in part of spasm of nostalgia?
Brexit was a choice between status quo or returning to what UK looked like before joining EEC in 73. Rare example of giving voters an option to go ‘back to the past’ and explicitly sold as such. Common phrase used was “take back control” – implicit appeal to the idea of returning the UK to what it looked like before joined EEC. Much was about UK’s “loss of sovereignty,” with the idea that the UK’s sovereignty be “regained” and a halcyon past before the UK was overloaded by EU bureaucracy and European immigrants.
These calls for ‘returning to the past’ were directed at a variety of voters – but arguably 4 key categories – i) Imperialist nostalgists – diminishing number but more prevalent in older cohort; ii) Racially concerned – invoking a Britain before mass immigration would encourage people to vote for leaving the EU iii) Non-racist and non-imperialist nationalists – advocates of nationalism commonly believe in the concept of a ‘golden age’ of the nation, such that their goal is to return their nation to its glorious past and revive it from its slumber. Indeed, for many British nationalists the golden age is World War II ‘ we stood alone’ etc; iv) And fourthly Older voters. Brexit exposed a generational split in the UK. Age was one of the most important correlates of voting Leave. They had a rare chance to vote to return to the UK of yesteryear, which in some cases provoked nostalgia not only for what the UK looked like before the EU but also what they/we looked like. Mixing up happy memories of one’s youth with memories of society as whole is not uncommon.
Now Nostalgia was not the only driver and there were other reasons. Many of the more neo-liberal advocates saw the opportunity for a Singapore-on-Thames type outcome. Therein though sowing one of the primary Brexit contradictions – this outcome runs against the nostalgia that sub-consciously/consciously drive others. Trying to square this much the story of the last 7 years.
We were on the cusp of bankruptcy in the Autumn of 1916 and consequently have been an American Helot ever since.
I have never been convinced of this argument about UK being ”Bankrupt” – its true at WW1 and then WW2 – we had up to 250% debt to GDP – but to whom was it all owed? – Much of it was to the citizens of UK – rather like Japan today (with their 200% + Debt to GDP mostly owed to its own people).
The Americans, of course also lent ”some” money – which was paid off in 2007 I think – Thats not because we could not pay it before, its because it was VERY CHEAP finance and it made sence not to borrow at a higher rate, to pay it off.
UK has its own bank and is today at much less Debt/GDP than most equal sized comparibles (and certyainly The USA). The German Debt/GDP is FAKE NEWS – as it does not take into account its share of debt/largess made by ECB – dollop that liability on and I bet Germanys Debt (quite servicable BTW) is substantially more than they declare.
UK has its own bank, and can pretty much do what it wants – unlike most EU countries (for example) who essentually have to ask Germany (but via the back door – not in the open).
No, whilst things may be tight with cash, The UK cannot be ‘bankrupt’ when it has its own printing machine (Thats to Brown and not Blair) – befoe the flame throwers charge in – I am not advocating further printing. I am just saying UK has its own means and can (as Japan does) is issues bonds to the UK public if it wants – just as it did in WW2.
The 1914-18 Debt was put into ‘suspended animation’ by a very generous President Hoover in 1932 and yet (if ever) to be paid off.
Had the US, and in particular Mr Paul Warburg decided NOT to keep funding us in late 1916 the war would have been over. As it was they decided to ‘double down’ and not only keep paying us but also to join the war, if only to ‘protect’ their existing debt.
After all if we had lost the Kaiser was hardly going to repay our debts.
Unbelievably we did the same again in 1939-45, although this time we had run out of cash by November/December 1940. Had the US not saved us with ‘Lend-Lease’ yet again it would have been ‘game over’.
Then of course there was US Neutrality Acts of 1935-39, which rather terminated the UK’s very successful plundering of the US Stock Market, which had been in full swing for well over a century.
Are you American by any chance?
No, but you must admit we taught them well!
No, but you must admit we taught them well!
Could you expand on that last paragraph on the US Neutrality acts?
Are you American by any chance?
Could you expand on that last paragraph on the US Neutrality acts?
Your last paragraph sounds a bit like Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Is that a direction you favour?
The 1914-18 Debt was put into ‘suspended animation’ by a very generous President Hoover in 1932 and yet (if ever) to be paid off.
Had the US, and in particular Mr Paul Warburg decided NOT to keep funding us in late 1916 the war would have been over. As it was they decided to ‘double down’ and not only keep paying us but also to join the war, if only to ‘protect’ their existing debt.
After all if we had lost the Kaiser was hardly going to repay our debts.
Unbelievably we did the same again in 1939-45, although this time we had run out of cash by November/December 1940. Had the US not saved us with ‘Lend-Lease’ yet again it would have been ‘game over’.
Then of course there was US Neutrality Acts of 1935-39, which rather terminated the UK’s very successful plundering of the US Stock Market, which had been in full swing for well over a century.
Your last paragraph sounds a bit like Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Is that a direction you favour?
I have never been convinced of this argument about UK being ”Bankrupt” – its true at WW1 and then WW2 – we had up to 250% debt to GDP – but to whom was it all owed? – Much of it was to the citizens of UK – rather like Japan today (with their 200% + Debt to GDP mostly owed to its own people).
The Americans, of course also lent ”some” money – which was paid off in 2007 I think – Thats not because we could not pay it before, its because it was VERY CHEAP finance and it made sence not to borrow at a higher rate, to pay it off.
UK has its own bank and is today at much less Debt/GDP than most equal sized comparibles (and certyainly The USA). The German Debt/GDP is FAKE NEWS – as it does not take into account its share of debt/largess made by ECB – dollop that liability on and I bet Germanys Debt (quite servicable BTW) is substantially more than they declare.
UK has its own bank, and can pretty much do what it wants – unlike most EU countries (for example) who essentually have to ask Germany (but via the back door – not in the open).
No, whilst things may be tight with cash, The UK cannot be ‘bankrupt’ when it has its own printing machine (Thats to Brown and not Blair) – befoe the flame throwers charge in – I am not advocating further printing. I am just saying UK has its own means and can (as Japan does) is issues bonds to the UK public if it wants – just as it did in WW2.
Stop telling us why we voted to Leave and start actually listening !!! It’s astonishing this still needs saying over 6 years on.
For many of us, voting Leave was precisely about being realistic about Britain’s place in the world.
It became obvious to me well over a decade ago from my industry (silicon chips) that Europe was in terminal and irreversible decline at the expense of the Far East and US. Looking more generally, it was clear this was spreading to other industries. And that the EU had neither the desire nor the will to do anything about it.
In the circumstances, tethering ourselves to a gradually sinking ship seemed like a poor choice.
Small, free-trading nation states around the world have been outperforming the others for decades – Singapore being the obvious example. Thirty years ago the GDP of Singapore was around level with the UK’s. Today it is double ours.
Agreed with these comments, essentially as I see thigns ”The EU will regulate itself out of business” and certainly in the case of the City of London, the over regulation was starting to have a detrimental impact.
should we be worried about ”City” competition from Frankfurt/Amsterdam/Paris/Dublin? – Nope, because THEY remain in the very institution that wants to strangle business.
Until recently I wondered why we were so often being informed that Insect Protein was good for us. The EU passing laws allowing it in flour etc suddenly made everything clear. Mind you Italy isn’t over-impressed. They are certainly not accepting it as a ‘fait-accompli’ The biggest problem we had and still have in the UK is the Civil Service. They are beyond control. A pity I can’t give names and numbers because of confidentiality conditions BUT there is a scheme currently being ‘trialled’ that is going to fail. It is going to fail because the Civil Service wants it to fail and so is hamstringing the private sector participants. No doubt when Labour get in (assuming they do!) it will be terminated as the Civil Service will point to “Another Tory initiative that failed.because the Private sector failed.”
We need to eviscerate most of what passes for the Civil Service and Quangos.
Until recently I wondered why we were so often being informed that Insect Protein was good for us. The EU passing laws allowing it in flour etc suddenly made everything clear. Mind you Italy isn’t over-impressed. They are certainly not accepting it as a ‘fait-accompli’ The biggest problem we had and still have in the UK is the Civil Service. They are beyond control. A pity I can’t give names and numbers because of confidentiality conditions BUT there is a scheme currently being ‘trialled’ that is going to fail. It is going to fail because the Civil Service wants it to fail and so is hamstringing the private sector participants. No doubt when Labour get in (assuming they do!) it will be terminated as the Civil Service will point to “Another Tory initiative that failed.because the Private sector failed.”
We need to eviscerate most of what passes for the Civil Service and Quangos.
And what policies applied by the Singapore state are you suggesting put to our Voters and esp those who voted Brexit?
Lot of contradictory thinking emanated from those who thought Brexit going to be the gateway to a Singapore on Thames future and the reason we haven’t headed that way is because it’s not what the majority of those who voted for Brexit would have wanted. You may have, but I bet you most Brexit voters did not and do not. Go and sell those policies to the Red wall, and without the Red Wall there is no Brexit. Furthermore even the PM of Singapore advised ‘….the Singapore government accounts for 16% of GDP, …to say that you’re going to be like Singapore, are you going to give up two-thirds of your government spending, state pensions and national health’
Nostalgia as an emotional ‘pull’ isn’t just about some pining for Imperial Britain and tea at Raffles (to make a link), but is something we all occasionally get drawn in by. Brexit campaigners knew that and deployed language that played on a rose tinted past where they felt it helped them. The ‘Take Back Control’ assumes pre EEC we had control. Any economic historian would appreciate we had massive problems with ‘control’ and were being bounced around on seas out of our control. But regardless of the reality the narrative has an effective ‘pull’. Many politicians deploy it, esp when lots of older voters.
Anyway back to primary point – our King is being sent first to France (now delayed) and Germany. That’s a deliberate and strong message about where is most important to us going forward.
Agreed with these comments, essentially as I see thigns ”The EU will regulate itself out of business” and certainly in the case of the City of London, the over regulation was starting to have a detrimental impact.
should we be worried about ”City” competition from Frankfurt/Amsterdam/Paris/Dublin? – Nope, because THEY remain in the very institution that wants to strangle business.
And what policies applied by the Singapore state are you suggesting put to our Voters and esp those who voted Brexit?
Lot of contradictory thinking emanated from those who thought Brexit going to be the gateway to a Singapore on Thames future and the reason we haven’t headed that way is because it’s not what the majority of those who voted for Brexit would have wanted. You may have, but I bet you most Brexit voters did not and do not. Go and sell those policies to the Red wall, and without the Red Wall there is no Brexit. Furthermore even the PM of Singapore advised ‘….the Singapore government accounts for 16% of GDP, …to say that you’re going to be like Singapore, are you going to give up two-thirds of your government spending, state pensions and national health’
Nostalgia as an emotional ‘pull’ isn’t just about some pining for Imperial Britain and tea at Raffles (to make a link), but is something we all occasionally get drawn in by. Brexit campaigners knew that and deployed language that played on a rose tinted past where they felt it helped them. The ‘Take Back Control’ assumes pre EEC we had control. Any economic historian would appreciate we had massive problems with ‘control’ and were being bounced around on seas out of our control. But regardless of the reality the narrative has an effective ‘pull’. Many politicians deploy it, esp when lots of older voters.
Anyway back to primary point – our King is being sent first to France (now delayed) and Germany. That’s a deliberate and strong message about where is most important to us going forward.
Your little world and its fantasies survive Brexit then. No Brexiteer that I met (Red Wall) was remotely interested in Empires or pining for them. We were MOST definitely not interested in the one Remainers appeared to desire, the European empire. They were more interested in why they were forking out a fortune in taxes to see it sent elsewhere when they wanted the potholes in the streets mending, the power to their homes being secured, the right to drive their cars on any public road without being charged for the privilege. They were also curious why their Government pandered to minorities and pilloried the majority. But then I’ve never met a convinced remainer who doesn’t think that with the ‘death of God’ they’ve not taken his place, and what they say is Gospel.
The ‘Globalist’ aspect of Brexit is the reality, – why should we not be able to deal with the rest of the globe rather than be incarcerated behind the protectionist wall the EU built?
One classic example from the Blair years was while he was talking about ‘Rip Off Britain’ – I was happily buying certain Asian character games from the US for my children’s hand held game machines, more cheaply than in the UK. Then, suddenly ‘The River of No Return’ refused an order. I enquired why and was told ‘this game won’t run on a UK console’ – mistake! I worked in IT, I knew it would but being as devious as they were, I promptly replied “No problem, the console is a US one, I bought it from there.” This had the desired effect, they decided to come ‘clean’. Admitting they couldn’t sell it to an EU country because of the EU rules. So I contacted the Asian company HQ in the EU and complained at rip off prices. They were surprisingly honest, though polite. Distillation of the core of the reply from the asian soup of politeness produced a distillate somewhat akin to the following
“We have a deal with the EU to charge high prices and keep out cheaper supplies from external countries, so tough.”
Don’t ya just love the EU? They have been conducting a guerilla trade war with the UK since the moment we left and our remain elite has acted as a 5th Column (and that included Boris) refusing to pin them down and warn them ‘It stops or we escalate and your fisher-men can go fish elsewhere and the UK Gas bridge that kept the EU alive last year gets closed.’ They would have been my first and second shots across their bows. BUT no, our remain elite undermined Brexit at every turn, down to Sunak now selling it out.
Please Red Wall, screw the GreenPlaidSNPLibLabCons and start returning Reform party MPs. You know it make sense!
You must be more sympathetic to our benighted European cousins. After all they have some fairly odious skeletons in their cupboards! To wit:-
France, 1940, Vichy, and the post 1945 recrimination atrocities.
Spain. Medieval barbarism mainly but not exclusively practiced by the Communists.
Italy: Mussolini, Ethiopia, Greece, Albania, etc.
Germany & Austria. Need one say more?
As to your point about Empire I fully concur. As a retired, formerly enthusiastic Imperialist, even I must acknowledge that as early as 1930 most of the Empire was a basket case, and likely to cause immense financial problems unless we could get rid of it, which we duly did, at minimum cost in blood and treasure it must be said.
That off course is not to say it hadn’t been immensely satisfying for those involved, such as my forebears, in a life of undiluted profit & plunder for nigh on three centuries. But sadly, “nothing last forever.”*
(*G.)
Sad. You’ve had 7 years and all you can do is blame fictious others. Having to confront the fallacies and contradictions in what you promulgated is understandably v difficult and for some the sunk costs associated are too great now and always will be.
You must be more sympathetic to our benighted European cousins. After all they have some fairly odious skeletons in their cupboards! To wit:-
France, 1940, Vichy, and the post 1945 recrimination atrocities.
Spain. Medieval barbarism mainly but not exclusively practiced by the Communists.
Italy: Mussolini, Ethiopia, Greece, Albania, etc.
Germany & Austria. Need one say more?
As to your point about Empire I fully concur. As a retired, formerly enthusiastic Imperialist, even I must acknowledge that as early as 1930 most of the Empire was a basket case, and likely to cause immense financial problems unless we could get rid of it, which we duly did, at minimum cost in blood and treasure it must be said.
That off course is not to say it hadn’t been immensely satisfying for those involved, such as my forebears, in a life of undiluted profit & plunder for nigh on three centuries. But sadly, “nothing last forever.”*
(*G.)
Sad. You’ve had 7 years and all you can do is blame fictious others. Having to confront the fallacies and contradictions in what you promulgated is understandably v difficult and for some the sunk costs associated are too great now and always will be.
Why was the vote to leave a spasm of nostalgia? I never heard a single leave voter mention the (long gone) empire as a reason for voting to break away from the EU except in the imaginations of remain voters.
Immigration, the desire for laws to be set by domestically elected MPs and an end to giving billions of pounds annually to an organisation whose own accountants refuse to sign off their books (even before the recent Qatar based corruption) were the reasons I heard, as was wanting to trade with the rest of the world rather than just a protectionist bloc
We were on the cusp of bankruptcy in the Autumn of 1916 and consequently have been an American Helot ever since.
Stop telling us why we voted to Leave and start actually listening !!! It’s astonishing this still needs saying over 6 years on.
For many of us, voting Leave was precisely about being realistic about Britain’s place in the world.
It became obvious to me well over a decade ago from my industry (silicon chips) that Europe was in terminal and irreversible decline at the expense of the Far East and US. Looking more generally, it was clear this was spreading to other industries. And that the EU had neither the desire nor the will to do anything about it.
In the circumstances, tethering ourselves to a gradually sinking ship seemed like a poor choice.
Small, free-trading nation states around the world have been outperforming the others for decades – Singapore being the obvious example. Thirty years ago the GDP of Singapore was around level with the UK’s. Today it is double ours.
Your little world and its fantasies survive Brexit then. No Brexiteer that I met (Red Wall) was remotely interested in Empires or pining for them. We were MOST definitely not interested in the one Remainers appeared to desire, the European empire. They were more interested in why they were forking out a fortune in taxes to see it sent elsewhere when they wanted the potholes in the streets mending, the power to their homes being secured, the right to drive their cars on any public road without being charged for the privilege. They were also curious why their Government pandered to minorities and pilloried the majority. But then I’ve never met a convinced remainer who doesn’t think that with the ‘death of God’ they’ve not taken his place, and what they say is Gospel.
The ‘Globalist’ aspect of Brexit is the reality, – why should we not be able to deal with the rest of the globe rather than be incarcerated behind the protectionist wall the EU built?
One classic example from the Blair years was while he was talking about ‘Rip Off Britain’ – I was happily buying certain Asian character games from the US for my children’s hand held game machines, more cheaply than in the UK. Then, suddenly ‘The River of No Return’ refused an order. I enquired why and was told ‘this game won’t run on a UK console’ – mistake! I worked in IT, I knew it would but being as devious as they were, I promptly replied “No problem, the console is a US one, I bought it from there.” This had the desired effect, they decided to come ‘clean’. Admitting they couldn’t sell it to an EU country because of the EU rules. So I contacted the Asian company HQ in the EU and complained at rip off prices. They were surprisingly honest, though polite. Distillation of the core of the reply from the asian soup of politeness produced a distillate somewhat akin to the following
“We have a deal with the EU to charge high prices and keep out cheaper supplies from external countries, so tough.”
Don’t ya just love the EU? They have been conducting a guerilla trade war with the UK since the moment we left and our remain elite has acted as a 5th Column (and that included Boris) refusing to pin them down and warn them ‘It stops or we escalate and your fisher-men can go fish elsewhere and the UK Gas bridge that kept the EU alive last year gets closed.’ They would have been my first and second shots across their bows. BUT no, our remain elite undermined Brexit at every turn, down to Sunak now selling it out.
Please Red Wall, screw the GreenPlaidSNPLibLabCons and start returning Reform party MPs. You know it make sense!
After all the Brexit bombast of Global Britain quite noticeable the Monarchs first two visits were to the centres of European power. Another signal being sent that we are slowly emerging from our spasm of nostalgia back to realpolitik, and who better to help lead that.
Concur with the general theme of the Article – ‘let’s get real about our place in the world, we’ve still many things to be v proud of and offer soft forms of power but some humility and good sense must be out-front too’ etc.
The one thing I’d debate further is the paradox that Little Englanders (a generalisation of course) also seemed to lead on the consumption of Global Britain rhetoric. The contradiction always appeared/s to have a rose tinted element of nostalgia and over-simplification of the position of the nation state as it’s energy source.
This is why Little Wales has to escape.
Perhaps they should revive an old tradition and start burning English cottages/holiday homes again?
“Come home to a real fire, buy a cottage in Wales “ as we used to say.
Reminds me of the ‘defaced’ sign in a Welsh College
“Free Welsh Prisoners” – and the (obvious?) English student’s edit
“with every packet of Cornflakes.”
I doubt that a poll in Wales would keep their Assembly, much less opt for independence. Certainly the outer suburbs of Liverpool in the North of the Country might do a Crimea, and secede from any Welsh State. Meanwhile, Scotland’s SNP is now more committed to Trans ideology than Independence. Perhaps the West Lothian question will disappear soon.
This is the new policy for unlimited free energy.
Reminds me of the ‘defaced’ sign in a Welsh College
“Free Welsh Prisoners” – and the (obvious?) English student’s edit
“with every packet of Cornflakes.”
I doubt that a poll in Wales would keep their Assembly, much less opt for independence. Certainly the outer suburbs of Liverpool in the North of the Country might do a Crimea, and secede from any Welsh State. Meanwhile, Scotland’s SNP is now more committed to Trans ideology than Independence. Perhaps the West Lothian question will disappear soon.
This is the new policy for unlimited free energy.
Escape what?
Maybe it should be ”even littler Wales” – but then, ”NewCo” would need to find the £4bn a year Barnett Subsidy than England currently pays Wales, from somewhere.
Maybe The EU will pay it with other peoples money, as EU generates nothing – it has to tax it.
I am also certain the vast majority (all?) English residents woudl not hold back Wales if thats what they wanted: same as if the Scots wanted to actually leave – rather than keep talking about it – such a boring topic now.
As of 1300hrs BST:” God help Scotland “ for no one else can!
Indeed. And I really thought for a while that the SNP would unable to find someone as mad or bad as Wee Burney (or at least not as woke.)
Sadly it now looks as if wee little Scotland will be on ‘the payroll’ for sometime to come!
Still better than subsidising ‘wretchedly needy’ Cornwall.
If London became a separate City State would that be ok? Rightly or wrongly London subsidises much of the rest and given it’s full of metro elites may welcome the chance, and others welcome rid of it too. Maybe just the Thames and a major road corridor to Channel Tunnel and that’ll do.
If London became a separate City State would that be ok? Rightly or wrongly London subsidises much of the rest and given it’s full of metro elites may welcome the chance, and others welcome rid of it too. Maybe just the Thames and a major road corridor to Channel Tunnel and that’ll do.
Sadly it now looks as if wee little Scotland will be on ‘the payroll’ for sometime to come!
Still better than subsidising ‘wretchedly needy’ Cornwall.
“The Lord works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.”
He may have just decided on a particularly mysterious way fo save not only Scotland but the UK from Wokery and other religious beliefs.
Indeed. And I really thought for a while that the SNP would unable to find someone as mad or bad as Wee Burney (or at least not as woke.)
“The Lord works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.”
He may have just decided on a particularly mysterious way fo save not only Scotland but the UK from Wokery and other religious beliefs.
Precisely, a more boring bunch of bed-wetting spastics is hard to imagine, and that includes the ever venal Cornish.
As of 1300hrs BST:” God help Scotland “ for no one else can!
Precisely, a more boring bunch of bed-wetting spastics is hard to imagine, and that includes the ever venal Cornish.
LOL – feel free to do so. The only problem you’ll have is that given a choice between the Welsh Parliament/Assembly and Westminster, even Westminster looks good to vast numbers of the Welsh population . A bit like the Welsh NHS being even worse than the English one.
Perhaps they should revive an old tradition and start burning English cottages/holiday homes again?
“Come home to a real fire, buy a cottage in Wales “ as we used to say.
Escape what?
Maybe it should be ”even littler Wales” – but then, ”NewCo” would need to find the £4bn a year Barnett Subsidy than England currently pays Wales, from somewhere.
Maybe The EU will pay it with other peoples money, as EU generates nothing – it has to tax it.
I am also certain the vast majority (all?) English residents woudl not hold back Wales if thats what they wanted: same as if the Scots wanted to actually leave – rather than keep talking about it – such a boring topic now.
LOL – feel free to do so. The only problem you’ll have is that given a choice between the Welsh Parliament/Assembly and Westminster, even Westminster looks good to vast numbers of the Welsh population . A bit like the Welsh NHS being even worse than the English one.
This is why Little Wales has to escape.