The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[L00b]

<...>

From the French perspective, if you've had the Prussians / Germans storming into your country three times in seventy years you can see the downsides of the nation state pretty clearly, and buy into supra-national authority. If you are German you almost certainly will want to forget the recent history of your nation state and also buy into supra-national authority.

 

There is a journalist in the Guardian called Natalie Nougayrede who wrote once about growing up in Alsace in the 1980's and how they were taught at school about what a bad thing the nation state was. It was an interesting read but I can't find it now.<...>

Good post *but* it's worth pointing out that Alsatians and Mosellans have a unique perspective -which differs significantly from that of the rest of France- on the last 3 European conflicts: unlike the bulk of France (the northern half, mostly) which was 'merely' fought over (thrice) and occupied for a small number of years (once), that area was fully Germanised: Alsace & Moselle were annexed into the 2nd Reich between 1870 and 1918 (1 or 2 generation's worth), and reverted to the 3rd Reich between 1940 and 1945 (that one is little-known and -referenced, to this day still).

 

The differences visited on successive generations of the population were stark, to say the least, and gave very good reasons to foster international dialogue and cooperation, rather than do entirely away with the notion of nations (Alsatians have no independentist aspirations like e.g. the Welsh, Scots, or the Catalans lately; they are in the main extremely proud of being French, and long were during the above periods).

 

When you had so many families with members of successive generations who fought for the French side in 1870, for the German side in ww1, and for the French side in ww2, most with uncles and cousins who fled to avoid German conscription (ww1, ww2) and/or to fight for the other side (not to mention some tough love/heavy handedness by France after ww2) it tends to put things about 'nation states' in a clearer perspective, at least in the collective conscience of the area concerned.

 

I don't really believe that Ms Nougayrede would have been taught at school about "what a bad thing the nation state was", since I was schooled in this area in the same period and clearly remember the French curriculum, which included no such aspersions. However, I can certainly believe that she would have been taught how undesirable the combination of various imperialist, isolationist and protectionist policies inspired by nationalist politics of the late 19th and early 20th century nation states were, in view of what they led to -with a unique bias for that area. I'd be interested to see the article, if you ever find it and can link it

 

Jean Monnet was French indeed, but Robert Schuman was at least as influential in the formation of post-WW2 'Europe'...and he was from the very area. I'd bet serious money, that not many Brits have ever heard of him

Edited January 16, 2018 by L00b
typos

[tzijlstra]

A lease is not the same as a mortgage. With a mortgage payments stop after full payment has been settled and the people or business remain in the building. With a lease payments continue for the amount of time a person or business is located in the building. The UK is leaving the EU, so no longer will be located in the EU, which is why I used a comparison to a lease rather than a mortgage.

 

The problem is, we aren't talking about either a lease or a mortgage - we are talking about committed funds.

 

What you are suggesting will not go down well either way and the EU will have a legal basis to chase the money. If you are hellbent on souring the relation between the EU and the UK than what you are proposing is a surefire way of achieving that. Trust me though, in a trade war between the EU and the UK, the UK will come of much the worse.

[Lockdoctor]

The problem is, we aren't talking about either a lease or a mortgage - we are talking about committed funds.

 

What you are suggesting will not go down well either way and the EU will have a legal basis to chase the money. If you are hellbent on souring the relation between the EU and the UK than what you are proposing is a surefire way of achieving that. Trust me though, in a trade war between the EU and the UK, the UK will come of much the worse.

What we are talking about is funding agreed before the UK people democratically voted to leave the EU. The UK will have a legal basis for not paying any so called divorce settlement and should go down that path, if no deal is agreed with the EU. The UK will have nothing to gain from paying any money the EU is chasing, if WTO rules come into force as a consequence of a no deal. As someone who lives in the UK and most likely works in the UK and pay taxes to the UK Government, then you should be in favour of no payments to the EU, if there is no deal agreed with the EU.

[Harrystottle]

I don't really believe that Ms Nougayrede would have been taught at school about "what a bad thing the nation state was", since I was schooled in this area in the same period and clearly remember the French curriculum, which included no such aspersions. However, I can certainly believe that she would have been taught how undesirable the combination of various imperialist, isolationist and protectionist policies inspired by nationalist politics of the late 19th and early 20th century nation states were, in view of what they led to -with a unique bias for that area. I'd be interested to see the article, if you ever find it and can link it

 

Thanks for that. The example of how different generations of a family had to fight for different sides brings alive the story of how Alscace changed hands.

The link to Ms Nougayrede's story is here.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/24/eu-protector-member-nations-nationalism-europe

 

Jean Monnet was French indeed, but Robert Schuman was at least as influential in the formation of post-WW2 'Europe'...and he was from the very area. I'd bet serious money, that not many Brits have ever heard of him

I won't be taking that bet!

[L00b]

Thanks for that. The example of how different generations of a family had to fight for different sides brings alive the story of how Alscace changed hands.

The link to Ms Nougayrede's story is here.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/24/eu-protector-member-nations-nationalism-europe

Much thanks for taking the time and effort, Harrystottle, very appreciated.

 

I misunderstood the expression 'nation state', as used both in your post and the article, which is somewhat metaphorical ('nation state', in aggregate, is an expression which embodies all that is bad about nationalistic self-interest) rather than literal ('country' -within the patriotic sense of the word- as I understood it initially).

 

The example of how different generations of a family had to fight for different sides, is not so much bringing alive a story of a place changing hands over time, as embodying the real-life consequences which nationalist policies can ultimately result in, when pushed to jingoistic extremes: in my earlier post, when I referred to 'fighting for the French side in ww2' (up to June 1940 officially, and until 1945 for those who answered De Gaulle), I omitted those who were made to fight for the 3rd reich in ww2, between 1940 and 1945, force-conscripted under duress of seeing their families being rounded up and sent for forced labour camps like Schirmeck. Many of them were ended up the Waffen SS on the Eastern Front, not out of choice or beliefs at all, but simply to make up the fallen German numbers, and -for the lucky ones- held prisoners in Tambow until long after 1945...whilst the French communist party was feverishly politicking away in Paris in the immediate postwar years to silence their story, fate and plight.

 

Besides the collective shame borne from the collaborationist excesses during the Occupation, which was enough to have the French government quietly snuff stories about these Alsatians coming out of Alsace, and not doing a whole lot of much to get them returned, the conditions and mortality rate in Tambow (comparable to those seen in Nazi forced labour camps) and the fact that most internees were French was very bad PR for the reds, you see

 

It's not the only instance of brutalisation and excesses suffered by that population, there were many others, both between 1870 and 1918, and during the second annexation. And, cumulatively over the generations, it makes for a very large imprint on collective memories for natives of the area, and a strong belief in proportion, that dialogue and collaboration between neighbouring countries is always to be preferred. The EU, as a 'project' (not a federalist one, I hasten to add; or, at any rate, not one with the aim of blending peoples and cultures and history and traditions into a homogenous whole) was pretty much borne from that mindset.

Edited January 16, 2018 by L00b

[ENG601PM]

I think we can understand French and German national psyche issues and why they might wish to embark on federalisation to avoid their ignominious history repeating itself.

 

But under what circumstances does German and French reach for federalism entitle them to force (by sleight of hand and stealth) other sovereign nations to join with them just because they happen to be in the EU?

[L00b]

I think we can understand French and German national psyche issues and why they might wish to embark on federalisation to avoid their ignominious history repeating itself.

 

But under what circumstances does German and French reach for federalism entitle them to force (by sleight of hand and stealth) other sovereign nations to join with them just because they happen to be in the EU?

No state is ever forced to do anything, unless invaded and vanquished (as recalled over the past few posts, opportunistically enough).

 

That it should choose to pool (not surrender) some aspects of its sovereignty for socio-economic advantage as part of a collective, is its own and sole prerogative.

 

Likewise its choice to grab that pooled sovereignty back, by invoking Article 50 and exiting the collective.

 

All so long as that is done according to that State's constitutional arrangements (which it was for the UK, both in 1973 and in 2016-2017).

 

Lets we forget, the Lisbon Treaty and the Single Market are both as much a British creation, as a French and German creation (the SM wouldn't have happened when it did, without Maggie's considerable involvement and lobbying). But I'll readily agree that the cake and eat it EU membership (rebate, outside €, outside Schengen, opts-outs <etc.>) was exclusive to the British, however. Along that same trajectory, and lest we also forget, the EU formally gave Cameron a non-federalist pathway for the UK in the EU, back in February 2016. But well, the electorate was told this was still not good enough.

 

So, we are where we are. And Leavers don't get to blame 'federalist' France and Germany because, well, EU federalism ceased to be a problem for the UK in February 2016, and is still less of a problem post March 2017.

 

The UK is in the big league now, that's what it wanted. Blaming others for one's situation or outcomes is a very junior attitude demonstrating lack of responsibility: India and China aren't going to give juicy FTAs to the UK because <EU negatives, real or imagined>; they'll only give juicy FTAs because there's something in it for them.

Edited January 16, 2018 by L00b

[Car Boot]

Why do you believe the EU to be undemocratic? What do you think Nigel was doing all those years? Why do you think he was there? he didn't just rock up one day and demand a seat. He was elected! The unfairly much maligned commissioners are appointed, but effectively appointed by the various national governments. Sure, you don't elect everyone that works in the EU but then surely you don't expect to? You don't elect the council's social workers, you don't elect fire fighters, you don't elect Doctors or Nurses, they are appointed based on things like experience, training, ability e.t.c. Why don't you already know all this? it isn't like the information and its sources hasn't been provided on here and across various media sources thousands of times. What is wrong with you? Are you incapable of accepting that your information or beliefs are wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence?

 

Of course we don't elect fire fighters, doctors and nurses to their jobs. Its nonsense to compare these useful professions to the powerful but unelected European Union (EU) executive, the Commission.

 

The EU Commission is the principal executive body of the European Union and it is formed by an unelected college of members who exercise the most important executive powers of the EU (according to the EU itself).

 

The elected EU Parliament is the EU legislative, with limited powers. The unelected EU Commission is the executive, the government of the EU. In what way is that democratic?

 

What is wrong with you? Why on earth would you seek to compare fire fighters to government ministers (EU Commissioners)?

Edited January 16, 2018 by Car Boot

[Obelix]

The Commission is approved by the EU Parliament - which we elect. You might want to consider that before you make a fool of yourself...

 

They cannot pass anything that isn't approved by the Parliament - which we do elect...

 

So tell me why you object to the Commission being unelected - but you dont seem that concerned about the UK Civil Service - which does much the same thing and is definitly unelected....

[Car Boot]

The Commission is approved by the EU Parliament - which we elect. You might want to consider that before you make a fool of yourself...

 

So 73 elected British MEP's out of a total of 751 MEP's in the remote and distant European Parliament approved of the EU Commission and it's President? No. The EU Commission and it's President were forced upon the UK electorate. Some British MEP's voted against it, and there were many abstentions. Democracy? Nothing like it. The EU opposes direct elections for the Commission. The Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker was personally elected by the European Parliament, however his was the only name permitted to be on the ballot paper!

 

Very democratic, EU style.

 

They cannot pass anything that isn't approved by the Parliament - which we do elect...

 

So tell me why you object to the Commission being unelected - but you dont seem that concerned about the UK Civil Service - which does much the same thing and is definitly unelected....

 

The European Commission has defined itself as "the heart of Europe, from which the other institutions derive much of their energy and purpose". Has the UK Civil Service done something similar? I think not.

 

The Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker has also described the current Commission as being "very political". The UK Civil Service is compelled by law to be apolitical and impartial.

 

The EU Commission, is the ONLY EU body which can initiate legislation. Other bodies may be involved, but it is the Commission which begins the process. So the Commission has a monopoly on the proposing of EU wide laws. Just imagine the outcry if that was a right reserved solely for the UK civil service. It would, quite rightly, be condemned as undemocratic.