12 ms·

The article was somewhat misrepresentative of the real nature of the Union proposal, in that it was by far mostly a French initiative, motivated by wartime/pani

by jariel 7y ago

The article was somewhat misrepresentative of the real nature of the Union proposal, in that it was by far mostly a French initiative, motivated by wartime/panic diplomacy geared to keep some French forces in the fight. I'm an English Canadian living in Quebec, who has lived in France and the UK ... and the very name 'Franco-British Union' has to make any reasonable person laugh out loud ... Right from the outset, the very first argument would be: "Why not British-Franco Union?" ! It's really interesting to see how contemptuously ignorant a certain class of intellectuals can be when the decide to magnanimously ignore the obvious issues of integrating vastly different systems (wartime pragmatism not withstanding of course - desperate times call for desperate measures). France is super secular, they hate monarchies, while the UK has a 1000 year old Monarchy, a State Religion, no constitution and arguably the oldest Parliamentary body in the world. A House of Lords and peerage system. And that's just the very start of the conversation. Here in Quebec we argue over the language used on stop signs, and every other thing. Watching French and English diplomats trying to actually manage the real details of such a union would be funnier and more surreal than a Monty Python film. Yes, we all have a lot in common, but there's a lot that's different as well, which why we have different administrative and cultural regions around the world in the first place.

squiggleblaz 7y ago
Well, the administrative regions we have are mostly the result of a previous invasion. And the cultural regions are based on the movement of people permitted by the previous invasions, and the requirements of the current invaders. France is a unified whole mostly as a fiction. Sometimes those fictions come apart at the seams - as in Scotland and Catalonia. Other times, an alternative administration can really smooth things out - as in contemporary China, France and Germany (deliberately subdivided to prevent the seams from ripping by building patches rather than merely stitching things together). Britain-France would've had lots of scope. Past monarchs, local loyalties, language differences. If the administration wanted to, they could've succeeded.
- jariel 7y ago
  I see what you are saying ... but the 'movement of people' was not actually controlled by anyone at the time. Boundaries in 2019 tilt more ethnic than merely administrative. Even within nations, there are often material boundaries between ethnic groups and cultures. The 1066 invasion did nothing immediately to shape the cultural landscape as there were no masses of people coming along. (Of course, the new William made a whole host of changes which did affect culture ultimately, but that took time). The previous invasion waves of the Angles, Saxons, Danes conversely did 'really change things'. I wonder if Napoleon 'never happened' - maybe we'd see a different chunk of 'departements' in France, with places like Brittany being their own, somewhat distinct administrative union. Yes - administrative boundaries are always fuzzy, but they are no means fiction. If they were fiction then the Habsbourg's wouldn't have had a problem holding onto their piecemeal empire. The Greeks have a well defined culture even though even during antiquity - they were never a single political unit. Similarly, 'Germanic' people have been living in the are since long before Roman era and again - no political unit. Same for a few others. It's not so obvious with the UK or France, but there are still real boundaries. If you sliced off most of the South of France / Cote D'Azure and Brittany (it's Celtic), I suggest you'd be looking at something resembling a natural state. In fact - Europe in 2019 is fragmenting further and further along cultural lines. Catalonia, Scotland. Belgium is deeply divided between Flemish and Walloon to the point where the Federal State is almost frozen, and yet the local regions somehow function. In fact, looking into the material issues between Flemish/Walloon yields I think the greatest insight into why cultural boundaries exist, and not just administrative ones. As for 'Britain-France' - I don't see why there is any 'scope' at all. Why not 'Britain-Netherlands'? Or 'Britain-Germany'? "If the administration wanted to, they could've succeeded." I don't agree: they would have been about as successful as Lenin's attempt to abolish that ultra-bourgeois entity 'the family' by instituting a 5 day week wherein husbands and wives get different days off so they never see each other. It would have been mostly a disaster. I don't see what Churchill or DeGaulle would ever pragmatically agree on anything. There is clearly a 'natural' scope of some kind of integration over there, which is at the European level! The EU or EEC in some kind of configuration makes a lot of sense. We can debate the details but some kind of coordination is highly rational at least in some way. The EU started as an economic cartel because that's what made sense, it's the part that still makes the most sense.

by jariel 7y ago

squiggleblaz 7y ago

Well, the administrative regions we have are mostly the result of a previous invasion. And the cultural regions are based on the movement of people permitted by the previous invasions, and the requirements of the current invaders. France is a unified whole mostly as a fiction. Sometimes those fictions come apart at the seams - as in Scotland and Catalonia. Other times, an alternative administration can really smooth things out - as in contemporary China, France and Germany (deliberately subdivided to prevent the seams from ripping by building patches rather than merely stitching things together). Britain-France would've had lots of scope. Past monarchs, local loyalties, language differences. If the administration wanted to, they could've succeeded.

jariel 7y ago
I see what you are saying ... but the 'movement of people' was not actually controlled by anyone at the time. Boundaries in 2019 tilt more ethnic than merely administrative. Even within nations, there are often material boundaries between ethnic groups and cultures. The 1066 invasion did nothing immediately to shape the cultural landscape as there were no masses of people coming along. (Of course, the new William made a whole host of changes which did affect culture ultimately, but that took time). The previous invasion waves of the Angles, Saxons, Danes conversely did 'really change things'. I wonder if Napoleon 'never happened' - maybe we'd see a different chunk of 'departements' in France, with places like Brittany being their own, somewhat distinct administrative union. Yes - administrative boundaries are always fuzzy, but they are no means fiction. If they were fiction then the Habsbourg's wouldn't have had a problem holding onto their piecemeal empire. The Greeks have a well defined culture even though even during antiquity - they were never a single political unit. Similarly, 'Germanic' people have been living in the are since long before Roman era and again - no political unit. Same for a few others. It's not so obvious with the UK or France, but there are still real boundaries. If you sliced off most of the South of France / Cote D'Azure and Brittany (it's Celtic), I suggest you'd be looking at something resembling a natural state. In fact - Europe in 2019 is fragmenting further and further along cultural lines. Catalonia, Scotland. Belgium is deeply divided between Flemish and Walloon to the point where the Federal State is almost frozen, and yet the local regions somehow function. In fact, looking into the material issues between Flemish/Walloon yields I think the greatest insight into why cultural boundaries exist, and not just administrative ones. As for 'Britain-France' - I don't see why there is any 'scope' at all. Why not 'Britain-Netherlands'? Or 'Britain-Germany'? "If the administration wanted to, they could've succeeded." I don't agree: they would have been about as successful as Lenin's attempt to abolish that ultra-bourgeois entity 'the family' by instituting a 5 day week wherein husbands and wives get different days off so they never see each other. It would have been mostly a disaster. I don't see what Churchill or DeGaulle would ever pragmatically agree on anything. There is clearly a 'natural' scope of some kind of integration over there, which is at the European level! The EU or EEC in some kind of configuration makes a lot of sense. We can debate the details but some kind of coordination is highly rational at least in some way. The EU started as an economic cartel because that's what made sense, it's the part that still makes the most sense.