3 ms·

Another way of looking at it is Britain tried to keep a fraternal commonwealth with free movement going for twenty years but couldn't carry the idea alone so it

Another way of looking at it is Britain tried to keep a fraternal commonwealth with free movement going for twenty years but couldn't carry the idea alone so it gave up and joined the European Union instead, cutting of everyone else including new Zealand and Australia. Which was a shame but how the world was going.

pjc50 6y ago
Well you could look at it like that but it would be .. wrong? It was always more paternal than fraternal, quite a lot of the freedom was won with violence (e.g. Kenya), if it were equal there would be no talk of "carry the idea alone", the UK did not join the EU in 1973 it joined the EEC (EU free movement only appeared in 1992), and the British public made it clear that they were only OK with free movement so long as the number of nonwhite people in the UK remained small. 1971 and the Kenyan Asians was the trigger for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_1971 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_1971 - that was the point at which Commonwealth citizens lost the right to live in the UK itself. Two years before EEC accession. (And the same year as decimalisation of the currency!)
- gandalfian 6y ago
  I'm not quite following the idea that they were to blame for imposing freedom of movement but also for then stopping freedom of movement? I feel your link supports my suggestion that they gave it a good go for twenty years and then moved towards Europe instead? Perhaps I misread.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    "Imposing free movement"? Gave what a go? At the height of the Empire there were effectively no internal movement restrictions other than income inequality and the difficulties of transport; you no more needed permission to move from Delhi to London than from Glasgow.
    - gandalfian 6y ago
      "Imposing free movement" I thought that was what your were saying? I said they tried to continue free movement and you objected it was a paternal not fraternal policy which I thought you were saying suggesting it was imposed rather than given as I said? And again you seem to me to be agreeing with me. There was free movement in the empire and after it ended the UK continued it for several decades before giving up and joing Europe? Which I posted to contrast with the original parent post that seemed to suggest that the UK left everyone trapped after the end of empire. So why are we in disagreement? Escapes me. But hey ho. Divided by a common language I guess. Oh and gave it a go as in gave letting everyone in the old empire continue to be able to come to UK a go.

pjc50 6y ago

Well you could look at it like that but it would be .. wrong? It was always more paternal than fraternal, quite a lot of the freedom was won with violence (e.g. Kenya), if it were equal there would be no talk of "carry the idea alone", the UK did not join the EU in 1973 it joined the EEC (EU free movement only appeared in 1992), and the British public made it clear that they were only OK with free movement so long as the number of nonwhite people in the UK remained small. 1971 and the Kenyan Asians was the trigger for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_1971 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_1971 - that was the point at which Commonwealth citizens lost the right to live in the UK itself. Two years before EEC accession. (And the same year as decimalisation of the currency!)

gandalfian 6y ago
I'm not quite following the idea that they were to blame for imposing freedom of movement but also for then stopping freedom of movement? I feel your link supports my suggestion that they gave it a good go for twenty years and then moved towards Europe instead? Perhaps I misread.
- pjc50 6y ago
  "Imposing free movement"? Gave what a go? At the height of the Empire there were effectively no internal movement restrictions other than income inequality and the difficulties of transport; you no more needed permission to move from Delhi to London than from Glasgow.
  - gandalfian 6y ago
    "Imposing free movement" I thought that was what your were saying? I said they tried to continue free movement and you objected it was a paternal not fraternal policy which I thought you were saying suggesting it was imposed rather than given as I said? And again you seem to me to be agreeing with me. There was free movement in the empire and after it ended the UK continued it for several decades before giving up and joing Europe? Which I posted to contrast with the original parent post that seemed to suggest that the UK left everyone trapped after the end of empire. So why are we in disagreement? Escapes me. But hey ho. Divided by a common language I guess. Oh and gave it a go as in gave letting everyone in the old empire continue to be able to come to UK a go.