So there seems to be some debate about how much we should pay as part of Brexit

[Peter]

Ultimately, this is the problem. We never understood what the European project was about because we don't have the same hang-ups about WWII (albeit we have a completely different set of hang-ups about it). In fairness to him, De Gaulle knew this and knew we could simply never get on board with the whole bloody nonsense.

The problem is that, as a nation, we were sold a pup by our own politicians. We rather liked the idea of a Common Market and, by the time we realised there was a bit more to it than that, we were (seemingly) in too deep to get out. However, ever since we realised what we'd got ourselves into (around the time of Maastricht, basically), opposition to the EU has grown and grown, culminating in the referendum. That's no coincidence. As a people we loathe the idea of being subsumed by a European superstate in no small part because we don't really consider ourselves European.

I mean, one could argue that the only good reason for us to stay in the EU was to prevent it becoming a single unified superstate, but I think the idea that that was what we were doing presupposes rather too much foresight and cynicism on the part of our leaders over the last 40 years. I think we bumbled into the bloody thing and now we're bumbling our way out.

Pretty much sums it up. Its in historical perspective that we differ so hugely from the mainland. Our biggest triumphs and greatest strengths have always involved ridding ourselves of our responsibilities in europe and making hay with the rest of the world. Our biggest challenges have all come from europe, be they the Pope, the Armada, Napolean, the Kaiser or Adolf. We thought the EEC would be a nice little talking shop that would keep peace between FRance and Germany.

All of this is true but of course none of it is the point. The idea of the nation state was a short lived ideal that led to nothing but trouble. Governments don't wield economic power now, that sits with the multinational entities that run a global economy. I am not saying that supra national bodies like the EU are of any real use in tackling this but I am saying that we are thoroughly deluded if we think that leaving the EU is going to make any real difference. It will give us a sense of independence that, for whatever reason, we need to feel happy with ourselves. And it will enable us, in theory, to manage the process of EU citizens coming here.

That will be enough for most people.

[World's End Stella]

I am saying that we are thoroughly deluded if we think that leaving the EU is going to make any real difference. It will give us a sense of independence that, for whatever reason, we need to feel happy with ourselves. And it will enable us, in theory, to manage the process of EU citizens coming here.

Yes, leaving the EU is just fluff really. It keeps a certain cross section of the public happy despite the fact that the real impact on anyone's life will be minimal unless everyone does something really stupid.

Put it this way, had the UK never joined, how different do you think the UK would be now compared to what it really is?

Not a jot imo.

[Peter]

Yes, leaving the EU is just fluff really. It keeps a certain cross section of the public happy despite the fact that the real impact on anyone's life will be minimal unless everyone does something really stupid.

Put it this way, had the UK never joined, how different do you think the UK would be now compared to what it really is?

Not a jot imo.

It will change a little bit and I would imagine we will be worse off in the short term. In the long term, I dont think anyone really knows. That will depend on how we adjust to our new freedom.

[Burney]

It will give us a sense of independence that, for whatever reason, we need to feel happy with ourselves.

This is actually a tremendously important thing. You underplay it, but it is.

[Peter]

This is actually a tremendously important thing. You underplay it, but it is.

As an outdated concept and a vague feeling yes, incredibly important. In a practical sense it obviously means nothing whatsoever but if it makes people feel happy then I am all for it.

What really matters is what they then choose to be unhappy about instead.

[Burney]

As an outdated concept and a vague feeling yes, incredibly important. In a practical sense it obviously means nothing whatsoever but if it makes people feel happy then I am all for it.

What really matters is what they then choose to be unhappy about instead.

I would argue that something that makes people happy does not mean nothing whatsoever. It's bound up with a sense of identity, cohesion and - most importantly - leaves no room for the sort of cùnt who tells you he's a 'global citizen' or an 'internationalist'. Those people really ought to be shot.

I mean, look at this bunch of cùnts at the LibDem Conference (at the risk of tautology). Absolute state of them. Hopefully, Brexit will wipe such people out.

DKAsEAtXkAA1Rkl.jpg-large.jpg

[Ash]

(on independence) As an outdated concept and a vague feeling yes, incredibly important. In a practical sense it obviously means nothing whatsoever but if it makes people feel happy then I am all for it.

This is how upside-down leftism has become. The pwopah old-school internationalism was based on solidarity among workers, and an understanding that nationalism was a capitalist tool to get workers to side with their respective national bourgeoisie. "Workers of the world unite!" as the man said.

On the contrary, the globalism of the EU benefits the capitalist class (ease of movement for their capital) and their middle-class hangers-on (don't you just love these cheap builders, baristas and au-pairs, darling) while forcing elements of the working class to chase around the continent for jobs.

Supra-nationalism not the new default position. It doesn't exist outside of the EU other than in empires, and national self-determination is currently the best geopolitical unit of democracy available.

[Burney]

This is how upside-down leftism has become. The pwopah old-school internationalism was based on solidarity among workers, and an understanding that nationalism was a capitalist tool to get workers to side with their respective national bourgeoisie. "Workers of the world unite!" as the man said.

On the contrary, the globalism of the EU benefits the capitalist class (ease of movement for their capital) and their middle-class hangers-on (don't you just love these cheap builders, baristas and au-pairs, darling) while forcing elements of the working class to chase around the continent for jobs.

Supra-nationalism not the new default position. It doesn't exist outside of the EU other than in empires, and national self-determination is currently the best geopolitical unit of democracy available.

That's because nationalism and nationhood have become demonised by the globalists. The narrative that nationalism was the evil at the heart of WWII (and must therefore be destroyed) dominates. People forget, of course, that that narrative is easily countered by the fact that nationalism was as much a huge motivating factor for those nations that defeated Nazism as for those who fought for Nazism. I don't think many Russians died at Stalingrad for communism and neither do I think anti-fascism motivated British, Canadian or American soldiers in Normandy. People will fight and die for their nations just as much when they're in the right as when they're in the wrong.

[Peter]

That's because nationalism and nationhood have become demonised by the globalists. The narrative that nationalism was the evil at the heart of WWII (and must therefore be destroyed) dominates. People forget, of course, that that narrative is easily countered by the fact that nationalism was as much a huge motivating factor for those nations that defeated Nazism as for those who fought for Nazism. I don't think many Russians died at Stalingrad for communism and neither do I think anti-fascism motivated British, Canadian or American soldiers in Normandy. People will fight and die for their nations just as much when they're in the right as when they're in the wrong.

Nationalism was at the heart of every problem in Europe for the century that preceded WW2. THe crumbling of great empires and the states that replaced them on the continent created a fundamental shift in the balance of European influence, most notably with the Gerries. Yes, it is unfair to blame the idea of the nation state for this as the balance of european power had to be restructured as the continental empires crumbled. Nevertheless, cooperation in europe in the aftermath was important and would have felt so.

Quite frankly, the attempts of the remain campaign to nod in the direction of european security and safety in defence of the EU was laughable. At this stage, the idea of Germans marching into France is as laughable as the idea that the EU would be able to prevent it happening.

So what is the real purpose of the EU? As Ash says, cheap labour and comfy regs for businesses to prowl the continent with greater ease. For us it also means being the natural home for those from the poorest parts of the Union.

From our point of view, bit of a **** deal.

[Burney]

Nationalism was at the heart of every problem in Europe for the century that preceded WW2. THe crumbling of great empires and the states that replaced them on the continent created a fundamental shift in the balance of European influence, most notably with the Gerries. Yes, it is unfair to blame the idea of the nation state for this as the balance of european power had to be restructured as the continental empires crumbled. Nevertheless, cooperation in europe in the aftermath was important and would have felt so.

Quite frankly, the attempts of the remain campaign to nod in the direction of european security and safety in defence of the EU was laughable. At this stage, the idea of Germans marching into France is as laughable as the idea that the EU would be able to prevent it happening.

So what is the real purpose of the EU? As Ash says, cheap labour and comfy regs for businesses to prowl the continent with greater ease. For us it also means being the natural home for those from the poorest parts of the Union.

From our point of view, bit of a **** deal.

Europe's problem has always been very simple: a lot of different people who don't much like one another crammed into a relatively small continent and competing for resources. If it isn't nationalism, it's ideology. If it isn't ideology, it'll be religion or ethnicity. if it isn't nations vs nations, it's been city states vs city states or dukedoms vs dukedoms. The only things that've stopped people killing one another in Europe in the last 70 years have been economic and material exhaustion, the threat of nuclear annihilation and a relative torpor induced by living cosily under NATO's nuclear umbrella. Dismantling the nation state (assuming it's even possible, which I doubt) will make fück all difference to anything.