Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Electoral intimidation at tipping point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40610171

Do we need new laws? It's illegal to issue threats, make libels and so on. Can't those be enforced?

This looks like a social problem, not a legal one.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I know it's true that Churchill supported the concept of a united Europe, and he'd be open to the idea of the uk joining it. I just don't think it's ultimately the best thing for us to do. If it was a trading bloc and not a political union I'd be cool with it. And yes, it's possible to have the former without the latter. Do you really think Canada, Japan, the rest of the world basically will let the eu take control of their affairs, join the CAP and let the ECJ dictate to them, just to have easier trading? It's not going to happen.

The EU doesn't take control of countries and dictate to them.

There are two Elephants in the room, their names are Italy and Greece.

And Greece has had massive loans from the EU, which they took of their own free will, that came with conditions of getting their economies and debt under control. It's not unreasonable for those of us who leant the Greeks the money to expect them to use it to sort out their economy so that further loans were not required.

I'm not sure what you mean by Italy being controlled or dictated to by the rest of us though. I know their economy is in a mess, but I don't remember any dictat from Brussels? Perhaps you could refresh my memory, I could be mistaken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Electoral intimidation at tipping point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40610171

Do we need new laws? It's illegal to issue threats, make libels and so on. Can't those be enforced?

This looks like a social problem, not a legal one.

A good start would be making more complaints to the press commission about the language and imagery used in the national press by the low brow tabloids. That creates an environment where it becomes acceptable for people to react on their feels with little analysis or information and then turn to spit vitriol at perceived "enemies of the people".

Difficult to enforce in law, so we should try to create an environment where these media outlets simply fail or become financially unviable. How to do that though is also extremely difficult when people continue to buy them because they re-enforce their own beliefs and make them feel warm and fuzzy, in an angry and unpleasant way.

Personally I think that if you're going into politics, it's probably going to be a fact of life that dickheads are going to abuse you. You could employ some poor sap to filter out the abuse for you, before addressing the non-trolls and real issues. Besides, if all they have left is personal attacks, they've lost the argument. I'd bask in the hatred, and know that if I'm pissing these low lives off, I'm definitely on the right track.

nfe wrote:

Does anyone really try and argue that the EU has prevented all war in Europe, or just that it has prevented war between its member states, which was all the rage for the previous, what, 1500 years?

Yeah, that's a common Eurosceptic point, the whatabout the Balkans. Forgetting that it was a tipping point for EU common foreign policy (basically nonexistent at the time).

In case case, look at Slovenia and Croatia now, both in the EU, and one of the conditions for entry was that they had to solve a border dispute dating back to their independence, which happened quickly and painlessly.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If ever the EU decides to tear up the Maastricht treaty, the Lisbon Treaty, and decides to abandon this Eurozone bollocks, admits its mistakes on full integration, and reverts back to a loose trading alliance i.e the Common Market, then I'd be the first to be calling for Britain to join up.

You had that. It was called the EFTA and you left them for the EU once it seemed clear it couldn't attract more than a few peripheral countries.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Electoral intimidation at tipping point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40610171

Do we need new laws? It's illegal to issue threats, make libels and so on. Can't those be enforced?

This looks like a social problem, not a legal one.

This has been occurring in British politics for hundreds of years. Lloyd George famously had to escape across walls and gardens when a political rally went horribly wrong during the dreadnought crisis.

Winston Churchill, the hero of World War Two, was famously ran out of London's east end during the 1945 campaign by a mob chanting for Labour and NHS.

Naturally, genuine threats and incitement to violence need to be tackled, but there is already laws for this kinda thing. The problem with this kind of things is that it's often a slippery slope.

We have genuine abuse that needs to be tackled, and then it suddenly morphs into people disagree with me, that's abuse. Shut these people up etc etc

Social media has made it worse but there will be some who want to use any old excuse to expand the law.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Social media has made it worse but there will be some who want to use any old excuse to expand the law.

Forget that - it's a drop in the ocean compared to the real issue: The Great Repeal bill.

I've been looking over the influence that 40 years on EU law has had on British laws, regulations, trade, culture etc etc

and holy horsegak, what i saw scared the gak out of me!

The tentacles, this hydra of an out of control Brussels bureaucracy has infiltrated Britain from top to bottom. It's a clear and present danger to our civil liberties and democracy, almost squeezing the life out of parliamentary sovereignty.

I knew it would be a tough task rolling back 40 years of EU law, but God Almighty, I didn't realize how tough it would be. To use a classic metaphor, it's an Augean stables that needs to be cleansed.

It's insidious and we've had a narrow escape.

The worst part though is that it was all done by the book, by a political class that bit by bit, sold this country down the river, and they're still fighting to try and reverse Brexit.

nfe wrote:

This is all irrelevant. 'Look at all the great things 'we've' done' is really a preoccupation of the chest beating, flag waving jingoists. Who cares? That's the past. Its context was entirely distinct from the socio-cultural and economic milieu we live in now. The question was (and is) all about where we'd be best placed to maintain and expand on these things in the future. We've had decades of governments frequently trying to erode civil rights and a current government who explicitly want to ditch human rights in favour of an as-yet opaque charter. I'm far more confident in the EU upholding these rights than British governments left to their own devices.

I think there is a trend amongst those who tend to be trying to build or promote a new world order (in a generic, non-illuminati sense) to disparage the achievements of what came before, or to handwave it away as the past, and therefore irrelevant. Practically every revolutionary movement does it as a matter of course.

The only reason any country functions the way it does is not because of the law or the government, but the culture and people within it. Transplant any European system to the majority of locations within Africa and it ends up mired in corruption within a week, for example. Looking at any individual government for things such as human rights is like focusing on a particular claw (an action) of a specific bird (the government) on one tree (in a given moment) in a forest (everything else to do with the subject).

Accordingly, to bring it back to the moment, 'Look at the things we've done' isn't so much a 'chestbeating jingoist' thing to do as it is examining the culture which you belong to and the trend of how that culture has evolved historically.

The social fabric of Britain is a fascinating one and thoroughly unique, as indeed, all societies are. And as a culture, we're enraptured by preserving our past. Those who see it as 'thinking we're still a colonial power' completely miss the wider significance of history to the British. We not only go out of our way to preserve items of bizare historical significance on a regular basis, we deliberately surround ourselves with them. We expose our children to them on a regular basis on days out to the museum/castle/stately home, we form literally tens of thousands of societies dedicated to preserving some obscure aspect of knowledge, artifacts, and locations, and our popular culture is embedded with references to it.

To the British, the past is living and breathing all around us. And items such as human rights and 'fairness' have, I think, become intrinsically interwoven with it as a result of many events buried within that history. The pendulum swings one way and back on a regular basis when it comes to politics and governmental powers, and the EU is only featured in a few of the most recent markings of our societal tapestry.

Accordingly, I believe those who fear our sudden tipping into a totalitarian state devoid of human rights once we leave the EU will be proven quite wrong.

Well said Ketara.

If anybody drives, flies, or trains it from the top of Britain to the bottom of Britain, what do you see?

Castles, Hadrian's wall, Stonehenge, the birthplace of the industrial revolution. In any British city, you'll see grand buildings that were built with the money made from empire. Head over to Whitehall in London, and you'll see buildings where the fate of the world was decided at one point i.e the partition of India, the creation of the modern day middle east, and various other nations that were conquired or finally won their deserved history.

Hop over to the British museum and you'll see the artifacts from Ancient Egypt to the Babylonians and so on...

You look at the modern world, and half of it was influenced by Britain. Look across at the USA, the latest superpower, and you see a country that speaks a language from the British isles, and who's founding history, and constitution, was heavily influenced by this same, small island...

That's not to whitewash the evils of empire. Never. But when you're surrounded by 40 centuries of history in your own nation, and see a lot of the world also influenced by your nation, it's hard not to be affected by that.

In many respects, this nation was built with the toil and sacrifice of heroes and giants. I don't think it should be discarded so lightly.

Britain is not unique in history or culture, but people take pride in some aspects our history as Ketara rightly points out.

The Khmer Rouge advocated the year zero approach to history, and we all know how that turned out

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You look at the modern world, and half of it was influenced by Britain.

I'm not even talking about empire particularly. You can go around an exhibition of the Pitman Painters, wander across to a medieval fete and quaff some mead in full costume, join the local club dedicated to historical entomology. I see it all the time when I'm over at the National Maritime Museum, hordes of hoary old men enthralling teenagers will tales relating to yachting and sailing and the one that got away.

Our culture is utterly obsessed with the past (in a general sense) to a degree like no other culture I'm aware of. I think it ties into another aspect, that of the eternal British hobbyist. It means people are constantly pursuing small projects of interest to them, and more often than not, it ends up involving some historical aspect. I bought a book the other day on munitions manufacturers that was written by a man because he was a cartridge collector and wanted to pin down some stuff about the companies. Yachting? You buy books on famous past yachts and go see them when on holiday. Gardening? Botany has a rich historical tradition and plenty of locations like Kew Gardens.

I could go on forever, but the point I'm trying to make is that as a society, the British are utterly enamoured with and lost to the past. But what's often missed is that the 'past' is more than just 'Empire', in the same way history is more than just battles, governments, and politicians. Just to seize on an example derived from one of those, look at the WW1 war memorials. In no other country involved in those conflicts does such a massive quantity of memorials exist of different types across such a diverse geography.

British cultural indoctrination accordingly infects the British with a deep seated respect for the past, and for where they come from. It's one of the reasons that Britain as a whole has proven exceedingly resistant to being influenced by the various political upheavals which have rocked the world. Much like how Japanese culture appropriates and then 'Japanifies' foreign concepts and institutions, the British tend to gradually absorb them and then modify them considerably to fit within an existing British framework.

The result however, is that the reason we won't end up suddenly sliding into facism is because people like nfe, me, and many others exist who have been raised within that framework. And that framework is exceedingly heavily against authoritarianism, on every level. Generations of fighting against the likes of Napoleon and Hitler have scarred British cultural history with a deep aversion to dictatorial states and values. We've brainwashed ourselves into culturally valuing certain concepts (human rights strongly amongst them) as part of being 'British'. It's a well documented historical phenomena.

The result is that generally speaking, there's just too many people in this country who frown when the binman dares to reject our rubbish for not being properly sorted, or a council official tells you off for smoking in the wrong place. We don't, as a rule of thumb, like being told what to do. Generations of Europeans have marvelled at the fact we treat ID cards as some sort of facist tyranny when they're the norm over the river.

Doubtless new laws will be passed which infringe upon liberties. It's what governments do, most often unthinkingly. But that's been a trend for the last hundred and fifty years. What ends up happening is that we hassle our politicians to modify laws until they're more reasonable, and if they refuse, we vote them out and replace them with others who will. It's a neverending developmental process. But the fact it exists reassures me that when it comes to human rights? We'll be alright, inside or outside of Europe.

Two posts above pretty spectacularly missing what I was getting at.

I'm an archaeologist doing a PhD and teaching at a university in the UK. Safe to say, I'm pretty excited about culture and the achievements of the past and am very big on how that informs the modern day (my PhD is explicitly about theorising cumulative and inherited experience, in fact, albeit in the Ancient Near East).

That still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward. We're not in some exalted position because we founded the NHS, exported a political system, dominated much of the world, erected castles, or built cursus monuments. None of those things mean we'll become a hotbed of technological and social achievement in the future.

All good points well argued, Ketara, but you overlooked the influence of class system in this nation over the centuries.

In all my travels, I've never met a country so beholden to the class system and the old school tie as Britain.

I cringe when I see people doffing their caps to the Royal family, and it fills me with sadness too when I look back on how many talented people never got on because they didn't go to the right school or know the right people.

And it makes my blood boil when I see incompetent buffoons like Bojo and Call Me Dave, people that are not worth a bucket of horsegak, being propelled to high office by dint of going to the right schools and knowing the right people

It's one of the very very few things I despise this nation for.

nfe wrote:
Two posts above pretty spectacularly missing what I was getting at.

You very explicitly said that the past was 'entirely distinct' from the present, and implied that it had nothing to do with how British rights and values would evolve in the future. To which I've quite comprehensively disagreed, on the basis that the 'past' affects British cultural makeup to a very considerable degree, which in turn influences how Britain will develop in the future. Cultures are not tabula rasa, how they react and respond to events is very firmly based upon their perceived background.

If you meant something else, now would be the time to elucidate further on precisely what you intended to say. Communication is a two way street, after all.

nfe wrote:
Two posts above pretty spectacularly missing what I was getting at.

I'm an archaeologist doing a PhD and teaching at a university in the UK. Safe to say, I'm pretty excited about culture and the achievements of the past and am very big on how that informs the modern day (my PhD is explicitly about theorising cumulative and inherited experience, in fact, albeit in the Ancient Near East).

That still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward. We're not in some exalted position because we founded the NHS, exported a political system, dominated much of the world, erected castles, or built cursus monuments. None of those things mean we'll become a hotbed of technological and social achievement in the future.

True, but it is a good reference point to draw on, is it not? We're standing on the shoulders of giants.

I'm not having a go at you, but it's one of the reasons why I'm so anti-EU. Die hard EU supporters have been trying to convince us for years that nothing good can ever happen without the EU.

No EU = wars, human rights going out the window, the return of hanging and disembowelment, kids working down coal mines again etc etc

I find it patronizing and insulting, because it suggests we're incapable of human agency, of making our own choices and decisions. British people, European people, were fighting for human rights long before the EU rolled into town.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

True, but it is a good reference point to draw on, is it not? We're standing on the shoulders of giants.

Only to the same degree that everyone else with access to an education is.

No EU = wars, human rights going out the window, the return of hanging and disembowelment, kids working down coal mines again etc etc

You need to find some evidence to support this strawman.

People do frequently suggest that the EU protects rights that would otherwise be removed by a UK government. With good reason, because our governments have had regular disputes with the EU over civil and human rights, are enthusiastic about attacking civil liberties especially as regards modern media and technology, and indeed binning the human rights charter has been a flagship post-Brexit policy.

nfe wrote:

People do frequently suggest that the EU protects rights that would otherwise be removed by a UK government. With good reason, because our governments have had regular disputes with the EU over civil and human rights, are enthusiastic about attacking civil liberties especially as regards modern media and technology, and indeed binning the human rights charter has been a flagship post-Brexit policy.

You yourself implied such fears previously. You know, for someone doing a historically based thesis, you seem remarkably indifferent to the relevancy it has on modern day culture and institutions.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

nfe wrote:
Two posts above pretty spectacularly missing what I was getting at.

I'm an archaeologist doing a PhD and teaching at a university in the UK. Safe to say, I'm pretty excited about culture and the achievements of the past and am very big on how that informs the modern day (my PhD is explicitly about theorising cumulative and inherited experience, in fact, albeit in the Ancient Near East).

That still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward. We're not in some exalted position because we founded the NHS, exported a political system, dominated much of the world, erected castles, or built cursus monuments. None of those things mean we'll become a hotbed of technological and social achievement in the future.

True, but it is a good reference point to draw on, is it not? We're standing on the shoulders of giants.

I'm not having a go at you, but it's one of the reasons why I'm so anti-EU. Die hard EU supporters have been trying to convince us for years that nothing good can ever happen without the EU.

No EU = wars, human rights going out the window, the return of hanging and disembowelment, kids working down coal mines again etc etc

I find it patronizing and insulting, because it suggests we're incapable of human agency, of making our own choices and decisions. British people, European people, were fighting for human rights long before the EU rolled into town.

I think the greater point is that, having extremely close economic, political, legal and social structure ties reinforces the respect for those rights and increases cooperation across a broad spectrum of populations. Does that mean that without the EU that people would just descend into barbarism? No, but there's a very good case to be made that the EU, along with other things, plays a strong role in maintaining the relative peace of Europe.

The flip side, a Europe without the EU, has a strong recorded record that when the constituent nations tried the "independent and strong" route they ended up butchering each other by the hundreds of thousands or millions...on multiple occasions. Doesn't mean the EU is proof positive that such won't happen again, but there's a lot more barriers to such with the EU in place.

One can look at the US as well, without the overarching federal government, leaving the states as their own independent nations, despite otherwise sharing strong cultural, language, economic and other ties, I would be surprised if terrible wars would not have raged across this continent far beyond the one we had a hundred and fifty years ago. For as much gak as gets thrown at the US for being a litigious society, the Federal government (and federal courts) generally do a good job of mediating and arbitrating issues between states, acting as a pressure valve and intermediary that would not exist were the states all their own independent nations. For example, water rights issues that could have led California to war and annexation of neighbors, were they independent nations, were resolved in Federal courts with nothing worse than a papercut instead. Likewise, the Federal government also acts to intercede where states fail the worst, as we saw with the questions of slavery and the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century. The fed has its own issues, and is by no means perfect and clearly does fail at times, but I absolutely would not want to live in a US without it.

 Ketara wrote:

nfe wrote:

People do frequently suggest that the EU protects rights that would otherwise be removed by a UK government. With good reason, because our governments have had regular disputes with the EU over civil and human rights, are enthusiastic about attacking civil liberties especially as regards modern media and technology, and indeed binning the human rights charter has been a flagship post-Brexit policy.

You yourself implied such fears previously.

Err, yes. I did. I'm not sure what point you're making?

you seem remarkably indifferent to the relevancy it has on modern day culture and institutions.

I said the exact opposite above.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

nfe wrote:
Two posts above pretty spectacularly missing what I was getting at.

I'm an archaeologist doing a PhD and teaching at a university in the UK. Safe to say, I'm pretty excited about culture and the achievements of the past and am very big on how that informs the modern day (my PhD is explicitly about theorising cumulative and inherited experience, in fact, albeit in the Ancient Near East).

That still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward. We're not in some exalted position because we founded the NHS, exported a political system, dominated much of the world, erected castles, or built cursus monuments. None of those things mean we'll become a hotbed of technological and social achievement in the future.

True, but it is a good reference point to draw on, is it not? We're standing on the shoulders of giants.

I'm not having a go at you, but it's one of the reasons why I'm so anti-EU. Die hard EU supporters have been trying to convince us for years that nothing good can ever happen without the EU.

No EU = wars, human rights going out the window, the return of hanging and disembowelment, kids working down coal mines again etc etc

I find it patronizing and insulting, because it suggests we're incapable of human agency, of making our own choices and decisions. British people, European people, were fighting for human rights long before the EU rolled into town.

I think the greater point is that, having extremely close economic, political, legal and social structure ties reinforces the respect for those rights and increases cooperation across a broad spectrum of populations. Does that mean that without the EU that people would just descend into barbarism? No, but there's a very good case to be made that the EU, along with other things, plays a strong role in maintaining the relative peace of Europe.

The flip side, a Europe without the EU, has a strong recorded record that when the constituent nations tried the "independent and strong" route they ended up butchering each other by the hundreds of thousands or millions...on multiple occasions. Doesn't mean the EU is proof positive that such won't happen again, but there's a lot more barriers to such with the EU in place.

One can look at the US as well, without the overarching federal government, leaving the states as their own independent nations, despite otherwise sharing strong cultural, language, economic and other ties, I would be surprised if terrible wars would not have raged across this continent far beyond the one we had a hundred and fifty years ago. For as much gak as gets thrown at the US for being a litigious society, the Federal government (and federal courts) generally do a good job of mediating and arbitrating issues between states, acting as a pressure valve and intermediary that would not exist were the states all their own independent nations. For example, water rights issues that could have led California to war and annexation of neighbors, were they independent nations, were resolved in Federal courts with nothing worse than a papercut instead. Likewise, the Federal government also acts to intercede where states fail the worst, as we saw with the questions of slavery and the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century. The fed has its own issues, and is by no means perfect and clearly does fail at times, but I absolutely would not want to live in a US without it.

Defenders of the EU often overlook the fact that for years, thousands of your countrymen and women were happy to hang around military bases in West Germany, at great expense to the US taxpayer, whilst preserving peace in Europe.

They also forget that Europe is not the centre of the world anymore - we threw that away in 1914 and 1939. The days of Europeans drawing lines on the map to carve up Africa and other places are long gone.

The centre of power has shifted across the Atlantic to a place I believe you're very familiar with and there is also a rising power on the other side of the world. Something to do with dragons and Communism....

Europe will never start global conflicts ever again IMO, becuase quite honestly, they do not have the means or the will.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

nfe wrote:
Two posts above pretty spectacularly missing what I was getting at.

I'm an archaeologist doing a PhD and teaching at a university in the UK. Safe to say, I'm pretty excited about culture and the achievements of the past and am very big on how that informs the modern day (my PhD is explicitly about theorising cumulative and inherited experience, in fact, albeit in the Ancient Near East).

That still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward. We're not in some exalted position because we founded the NHS, exported a political system, dominated much of the world, erected castles, or built cursus monuments. None of those things mean we'll become a hotbed of technological and social achievement in the future.

True, but it is a good reference point to draw on, is it not? We're standing on the shoulders of giants.

I'm not having a go at you, but it's one of the reasons why I'm so anti-EU. Die hard EU supporters have been trying to convince us for years that nothing good can ever happen without the EU.

No EU = wars, human rights going out the window, the return of hanging and disembowelment, kids working down coal mines again etc etc

I find it patronizing and insulting, because it suggests we're incapable of human agency, of making our own choices and decisions. British people, European people, were fighting for human rights long before the EU rolled into town.

I think the greater point is that, having extremely close economic, political, legal and social structure ties reinforces the respect for those rights and increases cooperation across a broad spectrum of populations. Does that mean that without the EU that people would just descend into barbarism? No, but there's a very good case to be made that the EU, along with other things, plays a strong role in maintaining the relative peace of Europe.

The flip side, a Europe without the EU, has a strong recorded record that when the constituent nations tried the "independent and strong" route they ended up butchering each other by the hundreds of thousands or millions...on multiple occasions. Doesn't mean the EU is proof positive that such won't happen again, but there's a lot more barriers to such with the EU in place.

One can look at the US as well, without the overarching federal government, leaving the states as their own independent nations, despite otherwise sharing strong cultural, language, economic and other ties, I would be surprised if terrible wars would not have raged across this continent far beyond the one we had a hundred and fifty years ago. For as much gak as gets thrown at the US for being a litigious society, the Federal government (and federal courts) generally do a good job of mediating and arbitrating issues between states, acting as a pressure valve and intermediary that would not exist were the states all their own independent nations. For example, water rights issues that could have led California to war and annexation of neighbors, were they independent nations, were resolved in Federal courts with nothing worse than a papercut instead. Likewise, the Federal government also acts to intercede where states fail the worst, as we saw with the questions of slavery and the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century. The fed has its own issues, and is by no means perfect and clearly does fail at times, but I absolutely would not want to live in a US without it.

Defenders of the EU often overlook the fact that for years, thousands of your countrymen and women were happy to hang around military bases in West Germany, at great expense to the US taxpayer, whilst preserving peace in Europe.

And when the EU starts talking about creating a common defense policy it's overreaching. Please.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

nfe wrote:
Two posts above pretty spectacularly missing what I was getting at.

I'm an archaeologist doing a PhD and teaching at a university in the UK. Safe to say, I'm pretty excited about culture and the achievements of the past and am very big on how that informs the modern day (my PhD is explicitly about theorising cumulative and inherited experience, in fact, albeit in the Ancient Near East).

That still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward. We're not in some exalted position because we founded the NHS, exported a political system, dominated much of the world, erected castles, or built cursus monuments. None of those things mean we'll become a hotbed of technological and social achievement in the future.

True, but it is a good reference point to draw on, is it not? We're standing on the shoulders of giants.

I'm not having a go at you, but it's one of the reasons why I'm so anti-EU. Die hard EU supporters have been trying to convince us for years that nothing good can ever happen without the EU.

No EU = wars, human rights going out the window, the return of hanging and disembowelment, kids working down coal mines again etc etc

I find it patronizing and insulting, because it suggests we're incapable of human agency, of making our own choices and decisions. British people, European people, were fighting for human rights long before the EU rolled into town.

I think the greater point is that, having extremely close economic, political, legal and social structure ties reinforces the respect for those rights and increases cooperation across a broad spectrum of populations. Does that mean that without the EU that people would just descend into barbarism? No, but there's a very good case to be made that the EU, along with other things, plays a strong role in maintaining the relative peace of Europe.

The flip side, a Europe without the EU, has a strong recorded record that when the constituent nations tried the "independent and strong" route they ended up butchering each other by the hundreds of thousands or millions...on multiple occasions. Doesn't mean the EU is proof positive that such won't happen again, but there's a lot more barriers to such with the EU in place.

One can look at the US as well, without the overarching federal government, leaving the states as their own independent nations, despite otherwise sharing strong cultural, language, economic and other ties, I would be surprised if terrible wars would not have raged across this continent far beyond the one we had a hundred and fifty years ago. For as much gak as gets thrown at the US for being a litigious society, the Federal government (and federal courts) generally do a good job of mediating and arbitrating issues between states, acting as a pressure valve and intermediary that would not exist were the states all their own independent nations. For example, water rights issues that could have led California to war and annexation of neighbors, were they independent nations, were resolved in Federal courts with nothing worse than a papercut instead. Likewise, the Federal government also acts to intercede where states fail the worst, as we saw with the questions of slavery and the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century. The fed has its own issues, and is by no means perfect and clearly does fail at times, but I absolutely would not want to live in a US without it.

Defenders of the EU often overlook the fact that for years, thousands of your countrymen and women were happy to hang around military bases in West Germany, at great expense to the US taxpayer, whilst preserving peace in Europe.

Not overlooking that at all, hence why I added the caveat about "along with other things". Nothing works in a vacuum, these are all systems with lots of interlocking parts. NATO and the US had a lot to do with that as well, no doubt, as other things did and do too, but the EU does play an important role.

They also forget that Europe is not the centre of the world anymore - we threw that away in 1914 and 1939. The days of Europeans drawing lines on the map to carve up Africa and other places are long gone.

The centre of power has shifted across the Atlantic to a place I believe you're very familiar with and there is also a rising power on the other side of the world. Something to do with dragons and Communism....

Sure, Europe isn't the center of the world, but that hasn't stopped places from descending into barbarous conflict before, nor were concerns over maps in Africa necessarily relevant to all of Europe's conflicts over the last couple hundred years.

Likewise, when it comes to geopolitics and looking forward, when faced with India, the US and China, does it make sense to be one amongst several dozen tiny-small-medium sized independent nations, or an integral part of a greater power able to show up to the table on equal or greater footing?

Europe will never start global conflicts ever again IMO, becuase quite honestly, they do not have the means or the will.

Never underestimate the power of people to do something stupid, they will prove you wrong every time.

That said, we needn't talk of global war, a conflict isolated solely within Europe could still kill horrific numbers of people. The Balkan wars managed to kill six digits worth of people in a relatively isolated and small corner of Europe in a relatively small scale conflict.

Likewise, when it comes to geopolitics and looking forward, when faced with India, the US and China, does it make sense to be one amongst several dozen tiny-small-medium sized independent nations, or an integral part of a greater power able to show up to the table on equal or greater footing?

In many respects, I want Britain to be small and insignificant. We've had 200 years of carving up the globe or saving the day, and getting bogged down in Afghanistan or the Middle East.

As a working class person myself, I hate to see working class people from Britain joining the military, and getting killed in the Middle East, just so that rich men can become even richer.

Let us fade away. We had our day in the sun, and we had a damn good run at it, but those days are over.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Likewise, when it comes to geopolitics and looking forward, when faced with India, the US and China, does it make sense to be one amongst several dozen tiny-small-medium sized independent nations, or an integral part of a greater power able to show up to the table on equal or greater footing?

In many respects, I want Britain to be small and insignificant. We've had 200 years of carving up the globe or saving the day, and getting bogged down in Afghanistan or the Middle East.

As a working class person myself, I hate to see working class people from Britain joining the military, and getting killed in the Middle East, just so that rich men can become even richer.

Let us fade away. We had our day in the sun, and we had a damn good run at it, but those days are over.

At which point you won't have your vaunted sovereignty. As a smaller nation you either band together with others or you get dominated by the big boys. Either one requires giving up some degree of sovereignty.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Likewise, when it comes to geopolitics and looking forward, when faced with India, the US and China, does it make sense to be one amongst several dozen tiny-small-medium sized independent nations, or an integral part of a greater power able to show up to the table on equal or greater footing?

In many respects, I want Britain to be small and insignificant. We've had 200 years of carving up the globe or saving the day, and getting bogged down in Afghanistan or the Middle East.

As a working class person myself, I hate to see working class people from Britain joining the military, and getting killed in the Middle East, just so that rich men can become even richer.

Let us fade away. We had our day in the sun, and we had a damn good run at it, but those days are over.

At which point you won't have your vaunted sovereignty. As a smaller nation you either band together with others or you get dominated by the big boys. Either one requires giving up some degree of sovereignty.

But that assumes that the 'big boys' the USAs, The Chinas, The EUs of this world are perfect utopias that run like clockwork. They're not and they don't.

The USA has just elected a complete idiot as its head of state. China is riven with corruption and demographic problems, and the EU is under assault from popular uprisings and a major migration crisis and it's losing one of its most important members. .

Why do we always assume that those three will always be in positions of global influence? Human agency shapes events. Revolutions happen, technology changes things, and of course, who knows what climate change will do?

nfe wrote:

Err, yes. I did. I'm not sure what point you're making?

I'm not particularly. The shift from first to third person just amused me.

I said the exact opposite above.

..............Errrrr.

This is all irrelevant. 'Look at all the great things 'we've' done' is really a preoccupation of the chest beating, flag waving jingoists. Who cares? That's the past. Its context was entirely distinct from the socio-cultural and economic milieu we live in now.

If you're indicating statements like the above as you acknowledging the impact of history on the future direction of contemporary people and institutions? You may want to try outlining what you're saying a little better, because what you appear to be saying is that it actually:

still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward.

to steal a quote from you.

Out of curiosity, how much historical training/of what sort do they actually give you whilst doing an archaeology thesis? I remember doing a few archaeology modules many moons ago when I was an undergrad, and it all seemed geared far more towards working with primary sources than refining it afterwards or fiddling with the epistemological angles. Is that consistent at a postgraduate level or does it change?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

At which point you won't have your vaunted sovereignty. As a smaller nation you either band together with others or you get dominated by the big boys. Either one requires giving up some degree of sovereignty.

What a strange idea. I don't recall anyone doing anything sufficiently strongarm you'd describe it as 'dominating' South Africa or Japan lately. Yet they still run their own countries without being members of the EU.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Likewise, when it comes to geopolitics and looking forward, when faced with India, the US and China, does it make sense to be one amongst several dozen tiny-small-medium sized independent nations, or an integral part of a greater power able to show up to the table on equal or greater footing?

In many respects, I want Britain to be small and insignificant. We've had 200 years of carving up the globe or saving the day, and getting bogged down in Afghanistan or the Middle East.

As a working class person myself, I hate to see working class people from Britain joining the military, and getting killed in the Middle East, just so that rich men can become even richer.

Let us fade away. We had our day in the sun, and we had a damn good run at it, but those days are over.

At which point you won't have your vaunted sovereignty. As a smaller nation you either band together with others or you get dominated by the big boys. Either one requires giving up some degree of sovereignty.

But that assumes that the 'big boys' the USAs, The Chinas, The EUs of this world are perfect utopias that run like clockwork. They're not and they don't.

Nobody claims they run like clockwork, but they don't need to assume they do either. The US certainly doesn't work like clockwork, and we throw our weight around and bully other people all the time in a very wide variety of ways. The British Empire certainly didn't run like clockwork, but was able to bully lots of people around for quite some time.

Why do we always assume that those three will always be in positions of global influence? Human agency shapes events. Revolutions happen, technology changes things, and of course, who knows what climate change will do?

I think it's fair to assume that, barring some major event that nobody can foresee, such powers will be in positions of global influence for any relevant span of future time that can possibly be planned for by human beings living today, and if they aren't, something else will likely come along to fill that gap in a similar manner. I can get run over by a bus and killed tomorrow or win the lottery, both are entirely possible, but I'm not going to expect or plan on either.

 Ketara wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

At which point you won't have your vaunted sovereignty. As a smaller nation you either band together with others or you get dominated by the big boys. Either one requires giving up some degree of sovereignty.

What a strange idea. I don't recall anyone doing anything sufficiently strongarm you'd describe it as 'dominating' South Africa or Japan lately. Yet they still run their own countries without being members of the EU.

They are, however, a member of the BRICS/signatory to a bunch of trade deals. I can concede that "dominate" was too strong of a term, however. The underlying point still stands: you're never going to have that illusory "sovereignty", there's always going to be limitations to what you can and can't do.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

They are, however, a member of the BRICS/signatory to a bunch of trade deals. I can concede that "dominate" was too strong of a term, however. The underlying point still stands: you're never going to have that illusory "sovereignty", there's always going to be limitations to what you can and can't do.

Oh, certainly. Kim Jong Un is unable to invade Iceland, despite his well known grudge against polar bears and line dancing. I'm not sure that means he's lacking in 'sovereignty' in North Korea, though.

I think we can both agree however, that being in the position of Japan to conclude a trade deal and being 1/28th of the EU's collective voice in concluding one are very different
though. Both have advantages and disadvantages. To bring in Vaktathi's quote from above:

Likewise, when it comes to geopolitics and looking forward, when faced with India, the US and China, does it make sense to be one amongst several dozen tiny-small-medium sized independent nations, or an integral part of a greater power able to show up to the table on equal or greater footing?

It's of little use being one cog in a greater whole if doing so brings you less in the way of benefits specific to you in a trade deal than being able to negotiate independently would do. Being part of a free trade zone helps to equalise that equation to an extent, but it doesn't necessarily balance it. Note that I'm not necessarily arguing that Britain is in a better position via trade outside Europe rather than in it, or even the other way around (that would be dumb, I've nowhere near enough data to form an opinion worth having on the matter). I'm simply saying that being part of a larger whole does not automatically result in being in a better position.

I think that's something that is applied more generally. If I tried to shove the USA, China, and Russia into a mutual political arrangement like the EU, it would be violated before the ink was dry. Too many differences. What's more, whatever apparatus used to govern that many people would necessarily either be unwieldy and ineffectual, or essentially autocratic. Bigger does not necessarily equal better. There has to be a commonality of purpose and clearly defined legal responsibilities and levels of representation. What's more, those have to be accepted by everyone as being adequate, or the whole thing falls apart.

 Ketara wrote:

nfe wrote:

I said the exact opposite above.

..............Errrrr.

This is all irrelevant. 'Look at all the great things 'we've' done' is really a preoccupation of the chest beating, flag waving jingoists. Who cares? That's the past. Its context was entirely distinct from the socio-cultural and economic milieu we live in now.

If you're indicating statements like the above as you acknowledging the impact of history on the future direction of contemporary people and institutions? You may want to try outlining what you're saying a little better, because what you appear to be saying is that it actually:

still means little to nothing in terms of what the UK will do going forward.

to steal a quote from you.

You're conflating remarks I've made about distinct issues. I stated that having achieved X in the past does not mean that the UK will achieve Y In the future. That is not the same as saying X does not inform how the UK and those who live in it understand themselves, their contemporary context, or their future. Clearly founding the NHS and being key to establishment of a human rights charter are components of how the UK sees itself, for instance, but that doesn't in any way mean that UK governments will strive to stand up for universal free healthcare or human rights, which is what DINLT was implying in the post to which the above was a response.

Out of curiosity, how much historical training/of what sort do they actually give you whilst doing an archaeology thesis? I remember doing a few archaeology modules many moons ago when I was an undergrad, and it all seemed geared far more towards working with primary sources than refining it afterwards or fiddling with the epistemological angles. Is that consistent at a postgraduate level or does it change

I'm not 100% on what you mean by 'historical training', but given the context I'm guessing you mean theoretical and interpretative methodologies? Those aren't something I readily associate with historians but then I mostly encounter Assyriologists and biblical historians! If that is what you mean, then it's highly variable between institutions and fields. If you're a neolithicist studying for an advanced degree at Glasgow you probably have a comprehensive theoretical background. If you're a Near Easternist at UCL you probably have almost none - I'm extremely theoretcal in approach and I get a lot of blank faces at Near Eastern Archaeology conferences . At Glasgow we teach all the big name anthropological and sociological names most often employed in archaeology from 2nd year undergrad and have compulsory third year courses that delve deeply into epistomology. I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on attempting to utilise Deleuzo-Guattarianphilosophy to develop approaches to religion in the ancient world.

As a (very!) general rule, Northwestern European institutions lean towards the interpretative whilst everywhere else is more positivist. This ebbs and flows, though, and some of the theoretical leaders are at US schools.

nfe wrote:

You're conflating remarks I've made about distinct issues. I stated that having achieved X in the past does not mean that the UK will achieve Y In the future. That is not the same as saying X does not inform how the UK and those who live in it understand themselves, their contemporary context, or their future.

Unless one is a determinist, Y is an entirely unknowable outcome to begin with in a strict sense. Accoridngly, I'm not certain it needs stating in relation specifically to Brexit, anymoreso than it does in relation to the Scottish elections. The only reason to do so that I can perceive is if one was stating that X in the past having been achieved will have no relation to whether or not Y occurs in the future.

Which, as I have argued, and continue to argue, is not the case. I believe it has a very pertinent influence on whether or not Y will occur, due to the related impact and legacy of X occurring. So to speak. Consequently, I'm not quite seeing how you're cutting the metaphorical cheese here. Either you accept that X occurring does have an impact on whether or not Y will occur, or you don't. Could you clarify one way or the other please? A simple yes or no will do. Then I know whether or not I should be debating this!

I'm not 100% on what you mean by 'historical training', but given the context I'm guessing you mean theoretical and interpretative methodologies? Those aren't something I readily associate with historians but then I mostly encounter Assyriologists and biblical historians! If that is what you mean, then it's highly variable between institutions and fields. If you're a neolithicist studying for an advanced degree at Glasgow you probably have a comprehensive theoretical background. If you're a Near Easternist at UCL you probably have almost none - I'm extremely theoretcal in approach and I get a lot of blank faces at Near Eastern Archaeology conferences . At Glasgow we teach all the big name anthropological and sociological names most often employed in archaeology from 2nd year undergrad and have compulsory third year courses that delve deeply into epistomology. I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on attempting to utilise Deleuzo-Guattarianphilosophy to develop approaches to religion in the ancient world.

As a (very!) general rule, Northwestern European institutions lean towards the interpretative whilst everywhere else is more positivist. This ebbs and flows, though, and some of the theoretical leaders are at US schools.

That's very interesting. Historical methodology is distinct from sociological and anthropological, although as with all things at the upper levels of humanities, approaches and philosophers occasionally get borrowed in a rather variable pick and mix approach. Some historians don't even bother with the whole affair (being able to adopt a qualitative narrative approach is remarkably concealing). I can't say I read much archaeology, but I'd assumed that sufficient professional archaeologists write history books in their own right on their own fields that there'd be more of an overlap. Fascinating stuff indeed! I might have to go and see if I can poke some archaeologists for a more extended discussion on the subject. Thanks for the info.

On an economic level, Brexit is a bet that the UK can by itself forge better trade deals more quickly than the EU, and thereby replace the trade lost with the EU and hopefully gain more on top.