5 ms·

It's a good thing the UK is less "relevant" than in those days! It would not be better for the world or for Britain if the British Empire was still at its peak.

It's a good thing the UK is less "relevant" than in those days! It would not be better for the world or for Britain if the British Empire was still at its peak. After all the Empire was wound down deliberately, the people didn't want to continue with it. "The US and the EU, at least, are exporters of rules and standards in the way that the UK is not (it effectively was when it was a member of the EU, as it had a lot of influence on the EU position)." No, that's a common claim but not really true. The UK had very little influence inside the EU and the EU rules were almost always made to satisfy the needs of either the EU institutions themselves, or the domestic economies of France and Germany. A good way to see this is to look at the fate of the "single market for services". The UK is uniquely strong in the services market, so guess what the EU never made much progress with? Compare to its obsession with harmonizing everything to do with goods trading, which benefits primarily Germany. Another way is to look at how responsive the EU was to the concerns of British voters on immigration levels. Answer: they hold voters in contempt and weren't willing to budge an inch. There was no influence, that's why the UK voted to leave. "As for trying to survive, Brexit has bolstered the Scottish independence and Irish unification movements" The latter maybe yes. The former, probably not. Scotland would have to apply to join as a regular country and its finances are in no state that would allow that.

NoboruWataya 4y ago
> It's a good thing the UK is less "relevant" than in those days! It would not be better for the world or for Britain if the British Empire was still at its peak. After all the Empire was wound down deliberately, the people didn't want to continue with it. Absolutely agree it is a good thing. Probably not everyone sees it that way though. As for the British people choosing to wind the empire down, I must have missed that referendum. > No, that's a common claim but not really true. The UK had very little influence inside the EU and the EU rules were almost always made to satisfy the needs of either the EU institutions themselves, or the domestic economies of France and Germany. All I can say is that as a lawyer in the EU (who works closely with the UK) that is not my perception or experience. EU financial regulation heavily bears a British stamp, and the single market was immensely beneficial for London. One of the main EU initiatives that was in full swing just as Brexit happened was the Capital Markets Union which was absolutely a UK-led initiative, headed by UK Commissioner Jonathan Hill. Since Brexit happened and Hill resigned, that initiative has trundled on, but has completely lost momentum and not really delivered what it was supposed to. > Scotland would have to apply to join as a regular country and its finances are in no state that would allow that. This seems as over-confident a prediction as the predictions that the UK would never vote to leave. The EU took in Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria for political reasons, it is not that much of a stretch to say it could take in Scotland.
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  The British effectively voted for that when they kicked Churchill out at the end of the war. It wasn't a referendum but was partly on those issues. Churchill was an empire man to the last, but the public wanted socialist spending at home, not imperial spending abroad. So they thanked him for winning the war by sending his opposition to number 10. CMU is the EU trying to take control of the financial industry via their usual trick of "harmonizing" rules rather than allowing differentiation with mutual recognition. It doesn't address the problems actual voters had around unlimited immigration. That is taboo for the EU.
  - chimprich 4y ago
    "Unlimited immigration" is how the right-wing press like to spin it, but it's a core part of the EU: free movement of goods, services, and people. Free movement is part of the deal. Free movement enhances trade. The US doesn't restrict people from moving between states. The UK wouldn't accept Scotland trying to reduce people from other parts of the UK from working or living there.
    - fidgewidge 4y ago
      How is it right-wing press spin, if it's entirely accurate as you say yourself?
      - chimprich 4y ago
        "Spin" is the presentation. Calling it "uncontrolled immigration" is to put a maximally emotive framing on the subject. It's intended to trigger negative emotions and conjure up images of hordes of people arriving in chaotic fashion ("uncontrolled").
        fidgewidge 4y ago
        But as you clearly admit it is (was) in fact uncontrolled immigration. I think your political biases are coloring this. It's a statement of fact. You believe it's a negatively "spun" fact because it is, in fact, a negative to basically everyone. Unlimited immigration cannot work because, even putting cultural issues to one side, you can't build unlimited infrastructure at unlimited speed.

NoboruWataya 4y ago

> It's a good thing the UK is less "relevant" than in those days! It would not be better for the world or for Britain if the British Empire was still at its peak. After all the Empire was wound down deliberately, the people didn't want to continue with it. Absolutely agree it is a good thing. Probably not everyone sees it that way though. As for the British people choosing to wind the empire down, I must have missed that referendum. > No, that's a common claim but not really true. The UK had very little influence inside the EU and the EU rules were almost always made to satisfy the needs of either the EU institutions themselves, or the domestic economies of France and Germany. All I can say is that as a lawyer in the EU (who works closely with the UK) that is not my perception or experience. EU financial regulation heavily bears a British stamp, and the single market was immensely beneficial for London. One of the main EU initiatives that was in full swing just as Brexit happened was the Capital Markets Union which was absolutely a UK-led initiative, headed by UK Commissioner Jonathan Hill. Since Brexit happened and Hill resigned, that initiative has trundled on, but has completely lost momentum and not really delivered what it was supposed to. > Scotland would have to apply to join as a regular country and its finances are in no state that would allow that. This seems as over-confident a prediction as the predictions that the UK would never vote to leave. The EU took in Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria for political reasons, it is not that much of a stretch to say it could take in Scotland.

fidgewidge 4y ago
The British effectively voted for that when they kicked Churchill out at the end of the war. It wasn't a referendum but was partly on those issues. Churchill was an empire man to the last, but the public wanted socialist spending at home, not imperial spending abroad. So they thanked him for winning the war by sending his opposition to number 10. CMU is the EU trying to take control of the financial industry via their usual trick of "harmonizing" rules rather than allowing differentiation with mutual recognition. It doesn't address the problems actual voters had around unlimited immigration. That is taboo for the EU.
- chimprich 4y ago
  "Unlimited immigration" is how the right-wing press like to spin it, but it's a core part of the EU: free movement of goods, services, and people. Free movement is part of the deal. Free movement enhances trade. The US doesn't restrict people from moving between states. The UK wouldn't accept Scotland trying to reduce people from other parts of the UK from working or living there.
  - fidgewidge 4y ago
    How is it right-wing press spin, if it's entirely accurate as you say yourself?
    - chimprich 4y ago
      "Spin" is the presentation. Calling it "uncontrolled immigration" is to put a maximally emotive framing on the subject. It's intended to trigger negative emotions and conjure up images of hordes of people arriving in chaotic fashion ("uncontrolled").
      - fidgewidge 4y ago
        But as you clearly admit it is (was) in fact uncontrolled immigration. I think your political biases are coloring this. It's a statement of fact. You believe it's a negatively "spun" fact because it is, in fact, a negative to basically everyone. Unlimited immigration cannot work because, even putting cultural issues to one side, you can't build unlimited infrastructure at unlimited speed.