NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by this artical

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4625707.stm

I wonder are we in the Uk suffering an identiy crisis or not? is this something people actually feel or something only polticians worry about?

is it indeed anything to worry about at all?

British identity has undergone changes thiers the classic loss of empire reason, but also the more recent problems such as more imigration (again hardly recent) and very new problems such as the devolution of scotland and wales.

As for my own opinion i think britain is suffering a small crisis of identity as in this increasingly golbal world it is getting harder and harder to point at something uniqley "british" (excpet possibly our sense of humour), not helped by the world wide ussage of engelish and the very porus anglo/american cultural divide.

But while we may be loseing the surface of our identiies i think those core of what our nation has always been simply those who live on these islands


p.s. i use british in its older 'truer' usage - i.e. england/wales and scotland all togeather

p.s. i use british in its older 'truer' usage - i.e. england/wales and scotland all togeather


:confused: what other usage is there??

Its usually taken to mean just england, was orignanlly devloped as an idea to unite more firmly the 3 kingdoms on the island (along with the union flag)

Some people take Britishness to mean cricket, bulldogs, pimms and tea. They believe England and Britain are the same thing, that the world revolves around London and the Home Counties.

Its usually taken to mean just england, was orignanlly devloped as an idea to unite more firmly the 3 kingdoms on the island (along with the union flag)

:confused: As a Britain (and and Englishman) I generally find that the only time Britain is ever taken to just mean "England" is when Americans get confused about how the different nations/countries within the UK work, although, to be fair, it's not just Americans, but other people as well. It is a pretty confusing system I guess. Anyway, the only true usage of "Britain" is to refer to the large central island of the British Isles consisting of England, Scotland and Wales.

Of course, that's reall just just pedantry - it won't stop Americans continuing to confuse them all ;)

yea, though id say its with no historical heitage anymore. i mean we spend years studying the the wars, but very little time studying the glorious revolution of 1688, or the Acts of Union between England and Scotland in the early 18th Century. Or British philosophy of democracy. if you ask the average subject where the battle of the boyne was fought, or when the Magna Carta was signed, or whom William of Orange was, then they look at you blankly, where not taught about the Empire, and the commonwealth is downplayed, i mean its not like they stood with us through two world wars, oh wait a sec.....
You see we arnt taught this as it is "UnEuropean" i can see in 2045 "You cant celebrate the end of World War 2! its un European!", or as with Empire history were portrayed as tyrants and THEN the government wants young men to enlist for the army? why should they? they have no patriotism as the government goes out of its way to destroy it as its "Morally wrong". What a complete shower of arses....

Some people take Britishness to mean cricket, bulldogs, pimms and tea. They believe England and Britain are the same thing, that the world revolves around London and the Home Counties.

Well its kind of fair really - after all its England that pays for Britain isnt it...me whilst I like being British would have no problem with Scottish and Welsh Independence if what they had was ACTUAL independence - as in England cuts the pursestrings and their MPs etc no longer get to vote on the small percentage of English laws that are still actually made by Westminster. Then we'd see how long before they came back, heads down like naughty children. Bit like the EU really - but then thats a whole new topic ;)

About what histroy were taught you do have a point

some of it is tuned to be relavent to modern life (i would tend to say if people who saw it are still alive its not history yet but thier we go)

but history has allways been tuned to what we want, look at king anthur for example

As for welsh/scottish devolution

Fair point if we keep going down that line then were're go need an engelish as well as british parliment

as for paying for it well thats what taxes do take from rich give to poor thats the basic principal of them

but having scottish mps vote on bills effectin engelish law only is now rather and oddity.


As for how the rest of the world views us, i wonder would it be fair to say off all of eurpse that were know more for our history than our current events (p.s. the central/eastern europe included)?

or do people know more about what we are now?

Naturally we identify with out successes and prefer to forget the failures.

Trouble is our successes are few and far between these days.

Most people can identify with everyday concerns and interests like sport, health care , education, entertainment, inflation, etc.

Not the EU, UN or to be honest most foreign affairs.

We excel at so little these days it is an identity vacuum we suffer more than a crisis. As Walden says; "It's a very sedate predicament..." and will remain so until we have lots to shout about again!

Inspired by this artical

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4625707.stm

I wonder are we in the Uk suffering an identiy crisis or not? is this something people actually feel or something only polticians worry about?

is it indeed anything to worry about at all?

British identity has undergone changes thiers the classic loss of empire reason, but also the more recent problems such as more imigration (again hardly recent) and very new problems such as the devolution of scotland and wales.

As for my own opinion i think britain is suffering a small crisis of identity as in this increasingly golbal world it is getting harder and harder to point at something uniqley "british" (excpet possibly our sense of humour), not helped by the world wide ussage of engelish and the very porus anglo/american cultural divide.

But while we may be loseing the surface of our identiies i think those core of what our nation has always been simply those who live on these islands


p.s. i use british in its older 'truer' usage - i.e. england/wales and scotland all togeather

Both British politics and British culture are at an impasse. Neither knows exactly 'what' it is or where it is going, and nobody who lives here could tell you definitively what the answers to those questions are. You'll likely get answers, they just won't be cohesive or united.

As much as I disagree with the Labour Party in general and Tony Blair in particular, he is the first leader to actually grab the bull by its horns and try to give British international (and to a lesser extent, national) politics some sort of new direction for what is, pretty much, the first time since the dismantling of the empire. It is unfortunate that in the process he has seemingly made every effort to quash and dampen British culture and heritage, which will make it hard for that to find a new direction as well.

im not sure, but to me the Atlantic is a lot shorter than the channel. When i read the declaration of independence, or the emancipation proclamation i understand it, (obviously as its in English) but from a cultural perspective and i believe in it. We really are different from the continentals in our ideas of how government and society should be run, weve been fighting to be away from the mainland for the better part of 600 years, and they are trying to slam us back in as its good for us. I just dont think it can work. Id much rather stick with our Commonwealth, or with the Americans. Ive been asked "Would you rather be joint partners in Europe or junior partners with America" but that doesnt fit, the Yankees are more than happy to leave us alone (to a large extent) and let us get on with our country whilst the Europeans are insistant that we do what they want and that actually they are doing us a favour by doing so. i supose im a bit like that movie quote: -
"We want to be free, to do what we want to do"

"British" identity has always been in flux but in essence it relied on Empire which is quite clearly gone now (a good thing btw). The nearest thing I can think of to a British identity outside the Empire is small minded parochial racism ala the BNP.

Time to kick out John Bull and dig up William Blake imho (as someone who doesn't describe themselves as British anyway). :)

i'm not, are u ?

im not sure, but to me the Atlantic is a lot shorter than the channel. When i read the declaration of independence, or the emancipation proclamation i understand it, (obviously as its in English) but from a cultural perspective and i believe in it. We really are different from the continentals in our ideas of how government and society should be run, weve been fighting to be away from the mainland for the better part of 600 years, and they are trying to slam us back in as its good for us. I just dont think it can work. Id much rather stick with our Commonwealth, or with the Americans. Ive been asked "Would you rather be joint partners in Europe or junior partners with America" but that doesnt fit, the Yankees are more than happy to leave us alone (to a large extent) and let us get on with our country whilst the Europeans are insistant that we do what they want and that actually they are doing us a favour by doing so. i supose im a bit like that movie quote: -
"We want to be free, to do what we want to do"

Heh. Okay, I can't laugh about the absurdity because it's not absurd.

You realize that Margaret Thatcher never had to say 'no' to Reagan, not because she wouldn't, but because she made it clear where the line was, and he did not cross it? Britain may not have been a "Superpower", but you were and, to an extent, still are, a "Great Power", the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU. What Britain needs, is a leader who can understand this, and is willing to use it. What you have, is a choice between those who want to suck up to the Great Yankee Boogeyman, and those who want to suck up to the Franco-German Economic Hegemony. The Yankee Boogeyman won't try to tell you what weights and measures to use, or what side fo the road to drive on. He isn't going to care whether you call your cash the "Pound" or the "Dollar" as long as the backing is sound. The Yankee Boogeyman isn't going to tell you to pretend you didn't win a bunch of wars or say that you need to eat your vegetables and go to bed on time.

But, Britain doesn't, and hasn't, needed the Yankee Boogeyman anymore than Britain needs Nanny Europe. It's the idea that you must submerge your own interests in favour of an 'international consensus' that cripples you. The U.S. knows about this-we walked out on the League of Nations, and we're rather hostile to the U.N. at the moment-because we understand a basic principle: when you start letting other people tell you what you may, and may not do in your own territory, you cease being an "Equal" and become a "Servant".

The Rhetoric used to sell the EU is wrong-if you have to rearrange basic habits on an individual citizen/small business level to conform to someone else's system, you're not an equal partner-you're a sucker who's been defrauded.
The British Commonwealth was structured to provide Great Britain with all the benefits that the EU promises-without the EU's interference in the affairs of its members. It's been neglected for some time now. Maybe you should consider strengthening those old bonds and severing the parasitic drag of keeping mainland Europe afloat?

I am British first and English second.

Seperating the nations of the United Kingdom will weaken us gravely.

I am British first and English second.

Seperating the nations of the United Kingdom will weaken us gravely.

"British First, English Second", but your leaders are "Europeans First, British Second". doesn't that bother you in the least? It would bug hell out of me to have leaders htat are more concerned with the opinions of outsiders than they are with the needs of their own people.

You're dead-right about dismantling the United Kingdom, though-it's been 'together' too long for that. We Americans like to occasionally joke about a Texas Secession, but even the more rabid Texans understand that such a split would hurt both gravely, possibly irreparably.
The only reason for the postwar decline of Great Britain was, and is, the idea that Britain is going to decline. the acceptance of second-status has hurt your nation more than you realize, because most on-the-street Americans still view Britain as a major power, a Nation worthy of Respect. Maybe it's the exerience of having the British Army burn the white-house or something... maybe it's lingering sentiments,but maybe, it's because we recognize that Britain still has the "magic", if they remember to use it.

"British First, English Second", but your leaders are "Europeans First, British Second". doesn't that bother you in the least? It would bug hell out of me to have leaders htat are more concerned with the opinions of outsiders than they are with the needs of their own people.

they are only "outsiders" if you put up barriers like that in your mind.
if you accept that we are all one and the same people, and that we can all work together for the common good of all - rather than working against each other for the good of the one - then you can easily understand why/how to put Europe first and Britain/your country second.
hence it doesn't bug me in the least.

in fact i'd like to see this thinking extended to a world stage, but thats another issue alltogether...

I too am a Briton...and get quite narked when certain ignorant individuals use England and Britain as a synonym.... I have mentioned this in another thread, but for those who don't know...the name of our country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland...where Great Britain comprises of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This doesn't of course include dependent territories like the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Falklands etc.

Sorry to get uppity...just felt she need to get it out....chilled now :)

I dont think we are undergoing any real identity crisis....our identity just slowly morphs throughout the decades. I have a german friend who has said about how much identity we have but miss...purely because we're used to it. People who visit from abroard may see these little things that we miss...like red post boxes with the royal mark....money again with the Queen on it. Independant of the monarchy, our money shows great people from our past like Sir Edward Elgar and Charles Darwin...and the British pub is quite unlike bars anywhere else in the world.

It strikes me that there is a hell of a lot of identity....we're just the only ones who don't see it!

well its a shame really, because we have people who think that nationality and national pride is more important than pretty much anything else, they think that for example closer ties with Europe will make them less british and we have crap like "joining the euro will end 1000 years of history" as if by joining the euro the world will end

I don't think our leaders are European first and British second...They remember who elects them, and Blair has reflected this with his arguments with France et al at the European summit. As a continent, we rely on eachother for trade....and whilst the EU is rediculously beaurocratic and burdensome in many ways...it can also be very useful. It does not need us to sever ties with it....we need to work together to reform it!

We are fortunate in our position of respect in the world in that it makes us diplomatically powerful....being a permanent security council member of the UN adds to that.

We are (fortunately) a key player in Europe (although many of our people view it as a meddling outside influence)... and the French and Germans know this. The don't push their will too heavily on us...because we just say no like Lady Thatcher did and Tony Blair is doing.

where Great Britain comprises of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

England, Wales and Scotland, no?

Since I was born in Scotland to half English/Half Scottish parents and now live in England i'm a bit of a British identity crisis!

I think our problem is that we used to be a superpower - and used to influencing others. Now that we are having others influencing us - the country's all a bit confused.

I don't think we should split the UK at all, despite huge differences in wealth and culture in the different nations, although the governemnt needs to start looking at the whole UK, not just the Home Counties. N.I. is a bit of an exception, if a large majority wants to see it united with the ROI I don't have a problem.

BTW:
Great Britian = England, Wales, Scotland
United Kingdom = England, N.I. Scotland, Wales
British Isles = UK, Ireland, Channel Islands, Isle of Man

England, Wales and Scotland, no?

Um... wasn't Ulster also part of that equation? Or is Ulster still considered a Colony of the Crown?

Pure Metal: The French don't think they're "Europeans", look at their language laws, their "Keep French pure" garbage. Relationships are give and take. I don't see much "Giving" from your "Equal Partners" in the EU. I see Lots of "Take" going on. In such a marraige, the most equitable result, is a divorce. and no, you're NOT "One People"-the base of your experiences changes that equation, as does the fundamental bases of your laws. You English share more with Canada, Australia, or the U.S. than you do with France, Germany, or Belgium when it comes down to core values. American Law is based on something you may recall (or not), "English Common Law". Strip away the externals, and you find that you don't have much in-common with your Continental neighbours besides geographical proximity. You've entered into what is commonly termed, on a human-beings level, an abusive relationship as the victim. Blair's arguments in the EU come late, and lack strength, they're "Please stop beating me", instead of "Touch me again, and I'll have your balls with a nice glass of wine."

The Europeans NEED Great Britain, the same is not necessarily true of Great Britain needing the Europeans. You should not be having to beg for what shreds of sovereignty you still retain. Your nation is in an upside-down relationship and taking all the blame for the problems-problems you didn't create, and shouldn't be punished for.

Britain does have a constitution though, and it is writen, its the Bill of Rights of 1689, and part of it says this: -

I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

So technically every British minister who has allowed or obeyed European law (whether it is a noble and wise law or a crap one is irrelevant) has in fact been breaking his own national oath to his country and is a dirty traitor not just to his country but to god. :p
:sniper:

Sorry...wrote NI as being part of Britain when I did mean Scotland. Incidentally, Ulster is the same as Northern Ireland....Ulster is its regional Irish name...The island of Ireland consists of Ulster, Leinster, Munster and Connaught. When the Irish Free State formed separate to thr UK...The British government tended to refer to Ulster as Northern Ireland to separate it from Eire.

Um... wasn't Ulster also part of that equation? Or is Ulster still considered a Colony of the Crown?

Nope.

Great Britain refers to the landmass formed by the contiguous nations of England, Scotland and Wales, along with small islands close to the coast.

Ulster is one of four regions of the island of Ireland. It contains 9 counties - Fermanagh, Antrim, Tyrone, Londonderry/Derry, Armargh, Down, Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan. The first six of these counties comprise Northern Ireland, and as such are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ieland: the clue is in the name.

Incidentally, Ulster is the same as Northern Ireland....

No it isn't, not quite. See my post above - Ulster is comprised of nine counties, while Northern Ireland contains only six of them.

"British First, English Second", but your leaders are "Europeans First, British Second". doesn't that bother you in the least? It would bug hell out of me to have leaders htat are more concerned with the opinions of outsiders than they are with the needs of their own people.


I dont think they do. EU budget rebate crisis?

I consider myself British first, European second, and Sri-Lankan third.

Sorry...exposed ignorance! Learn a new thing every day. :)

But other laws written since then allow EU law and all that. Obeying the EU does have a legal framework in the UK (I'm not saying I agree with it).

Although i'm a european federalist, I would never support a United States of Europe through the EU. That is wrong. The EU is undemocratic and corrupt (around 10% of its finances is involved in corruption and fraud, apprently) and should not take legislative power or executive power from member states.

I also don't think simply having "Keep French Pure" stops france from being European (They're EU bullies!) since French is not just spoken in France. It is spoken in Québec, Canada; Africa and i *think* a second language in parts of Asia. Also as an analogy, speaking Welsh, Cornish or Gaelic doesn't stop these people being British. What would we have instead? A world of esperanto?

well its a shame really, because we have people who think that nationality and national pride is more important than pretty much anything else, they think that for example closer ties with Europe will make them less british and we have crap like "joining the euro will end 1000 years of history" as if by joining the euro the world will end

Hmmm... What's more important to you-your neighbours and family, or someone across the sea? Put it another way: do you know who lives in the flat next-door? Is that person not worth more in your life than some stranger who wants to use your earnings to support his pet causes?
At bottom of it, Charity begins at home. The EU was billed as a "United States of Europe" when it was proposed. the Proposal ignored a few key points:

1. Most of Europe does not function by the same core rules that the United Kingdom does.

2. The United States of America only works, because it's an Assimilation machine-we DO have a monoculture of sorts-more than you can impose by decree on Europe, at any rate. To achieve a similar status, the whole must be 'averaged'. Guess who gets to sacrifice most of their cultural achievement, legal structure and system, sovereignty, and economic strength to create this baseline?
(Hint: it's not France or Germany.)

3. The Euro is a composite currency, meaning its value is averaged out over both the strong economies in Europe, and the basket-cases. Consider how the Russian mess would impact the Euro's value should Russia join the EU without making significant changes to their economic structure.
It looks good, while the majority of the EU is first-world nations, but Europe isn't entirely first-world. The membership have different concepts of Labour laws, for instance, and different infrastructures. not just different levels, but severely different priorities.

4. The EU "Constitution" that was rejected by France. It tried to address point (3) and point (2) but is unweildy and complicated. In machinery, complicated means "Will malfunction often and has problems adapting to new conditions." Same thing with this.

IF the UK is going to be part of the EU, the UK needs to be one of, if not the, top leadership, not a minority voice belonging to one who will be ruthlessly exploited. You're already getting hit with it in the form of one-sided deals that your government would have rightly rejected from the U.S. The UK needs to stop being submissive, and start being what they have always been before-leadership. and if the EU doesn't like it, you can tell them to take a hike-that's the attitude, not "Ohpleaseforgiveusforwantingtobeourselves".

I don't see much "Giving" from your "Equal Partners" in the EU. I see Lots of "Take" going on. .

Clearly then, you're not from formerly economically deprived areas such as south Wales which have revived with the help of EU funding. Nor are you a British farmer utilising European subsidies, or a British worker with rights protected under European law, or a member of a minority with protection thanks to the European bill of rights. Perhaps it's because you're not, in fact, European at all?[/QUOTE]



You English share more with Canada, Australia, or the U.S. than you do with France, Germany, or Belgium when it comes down to core values.

I've been fortunate enough to visit the USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Spain and the Netherlands. Having done so I've realised we in the UK are very culturally close to Germany, especially in the case of young people - the only major difference is that of language. Politically we share a history of social democracy with a number of other nations (although certainly not the USA) but our welfare system is probably closest to those in France and Germany. The secular, open Canadian society is actually pretty similar to our own, but the more conservative Australians often seem to have quite a different outlook on life, and the Americans are far closer to the Swiss than anyone else probably.


American Law is based on something you may recall (or not), "English Common Law" .

...and British common law stems from those rules taken here from the Normans (from modern day Normandy) and the French...

Actually, you do have a point about us being quite different to the French in some respects. The American political system took so much from revolutionary France that it's really quite different to the British one!

Blair's arguments in the EU come late, and lack strength, they're "Please stop beating me", instead of "Touch me again, and I'll have your balls with a nice glass of wine."

I think it's a bit odd that we expect to put so much less into the EU than anyone else. That said, I agree with Blair that the Common Agriculture Policy needs reforming.


The Europeans NEED Great Britain, the same is not necessarily true of Great Britain needing the Europeans.

They don't *need* us and we don't *need* them...but we're pretty useful to one another ;)

So technically every British minister who has allowed or obeyed European law (whether it is a noble and wise law or a crap one is irrelevant) has in fact been breaking his own national oath to his country and is a dirty traitor not just to his country but to god.

That is kinda funny :) However, unlike the American consistution ours is constantly changing and evolving (every Act of Parliament is, by definition, constitutional) so in fact British membership of the EU is consitutional...every European law is automatically part of the British consitution. Since ye olde bill of rights was never repealed I believe, it is still in play...one of the many contradictions of the UK! Still, everything works, just about (apart from the trains...bloody things)

Hmmm... What's more important to you-your neighbours and family, or someone across the sea?

A fair point, but I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that as a citizen of southern England, I actually live closer to the west coast of France than I do to Scotland.

I like the three being together, and am Devonian, FYI.

The old, fat, intoxicated woman whom nobody loves and who lives from hand to mouth just above the dregs of society, believes nevertheless, that her rights in that society are superior to anything a Russian or Prussian could expect in theirs. Doubtless she would have included the French, Spaniards and Italians in her condemnation, as other characters in Dickens do.

Men like Lord Palmerston and Benjamin Disraeli would have agreed wholeheartedly with Mrs Gamp. Even Dickens, though a progressive and a reformer with advanced radical views, undoubtedly regarded British institutions as superior to those found abroad.

Heh, heh, heh...

But other laws written since then allow EU law and all that. Obeying the EU does have a legal framework in the UK (I'm not saying I agree with it).

Although i'm a european federalist, I would never support a United States of Europe through the EU. That is wrong. The EU is undemocratic and corrupt (around 10% of its finances is involved in corruption and fraud, apprently) and should not take legislative power or executive power from member states.

I also don't think simply having "Keep French Pure" stops france from being European (They're EU bullies!) since French is not just spoken in France. It is spoken in Québec, Canada; Africa and i *think* a second language in parts of Asia. Also as an analogy, speaking Welsh, Cornish or Gaelic doesn't stop these people being British. What would we have instead? A world of esperanto?

Some theorists believe that language is a reflection of thought, while others believe that language guides and controls thought. Either way, it's not the "Language" that I'm citing as a problem-it's the Laws. They reflect a concept behind them, a driving belief-system that mandates that such laws even be considered.

We have a similar problem in some areas of the United States, among people who really ought to know better. the "English Only" movement is based on similar types and kinds of bigots, and has no real traction here besides giving a bit of a laugh on a slow news day. But...
In France, that kind of bigotry has resulted in legislative action, including the passage of Laws to "Preserve the culture".

That's the first thing. Second thing, is why is the Rebate Crisis a Crisis? Because the EU parlaiment doesn't want to pay up on a deal, that's why.
they want to break an agreement and still keep the bennies they got from your government, your taxpaying subjects, from you.

This is not quite like my brother-in-law borrowing one of my paychecks' worth of cash, then trying to weasel out of paying it back even though he has more money than I do.

My solution was to stop loaning him money. or tools, or anything else that I might need, because he's an unethical prick. The dissimilarity is only one of scale. The EU as currently constituted can and will act like my Brother in Law, who's been cheating and screwing members of my family for years-I'm the only hold-out who won't bend a sympathetic ear. You don't give in to people who treat you like a cash-machine, then lecture you about your evil lifestyle if you want to retain any sort of dignity at all. He may be a christian, and I may be a...a non-christian, but that doesn't grant him moral superiority, or the right to expect me to be a sucker.

Same thing with the UK, you shouldn't be a sucker to someone simply because they happen to claim, by sheer trick of a contract, family. Not when they don't treat you with due respect.

In France, that kind of bigotry has resulted in legislative action, including the passage of Laws to "Preserve the culture".

Said legislation, ironically enough, opened the way for the explosion of French-Algerian rap and hip-hop. The music of the immigrant cultures was used to fill radio airtime earmarked for 'French' music, thus subverting the original short-sighted intentions of the legislators.

Some theorists believe that language is a reflection of thought, while others believe that language guides and controls thought. Either way, it's not the "Language" that I'm citing as a problem-it's the Laws. They reflect a concept behind them, a driving belief-system that mandates that such laws even be considered.

We have a similar problem in some areas of the United States, among people who really ought to know better. the "English Only" movement is based on similar types and kinds of bigots, and has no real traction here besides giving a bit of a laugh on a slow news day. But...
In France, that kind of bigotry has resulted in legislative action, including the passage of Laws to "Preserve the culture".

That's the first thing. Second thing, is why is the Rebate Crisis a Crisis? Because the EU parlaiment doesn't want to pay up on a deal, that's why.
they want to break an agreement and still keep the bennies they got from your government, your taxpaying subjects, from you.

This is not quite like my brother-in-law borrowing one of my paychecks' worth of cash, then trying to weasel out of paying it back even though he has more money than I do.

My solution was to stop loaning him money. or tools, or anything else that I might need, because he's an unethical prick. The dissimilarity is only one of scale. The EU as currently constituted can and will act like my Brother in Law, who's been cheating and screwing members of my family for years-I'm the only hold-out who won't bend a sympathetic ear. You don't give in to people who treat you like a cash-machine, then lecture you about your evil lifestyle if you want to retain any sort of dignity at all. He may be a christian, and I may be a...a non-christian, but that doesn't grant him moral superiority, or the right to expect me to be a sucker.

Same thing with the UK, you shouldn't be a sucker to someone simply because they happen to claim, by sheer trick of a contract, family. Not when they don't treat you with due respect.

Which is why i'm pro Europe but not pro-EU.

A fair point, but I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that as a citizen of southern England, I actually live closer to the west coast of France than I do to Scotland.

Yah, so? in the past, I've lived within five miles of the Mexican border for a while, it doesn't mean I want the federales poking around in my garden, nor would I expect them to come running if my house caught fire. I certainly wouldn't stretch things to believe that the government across the river would grant me the equal and fair treatment in a court of law that a New Jersey Judge would. For that matter, I wouldn't have, at that time in my life, expected a Mexican court to be as safe a seat of Justice as I would a Canadian court-and that was more than a thousand miles north of me. Geographical proximity does not equate into any sort of cultural or legal equivalent. Like Gun-Control, what works for one people may not be good for another. Even with very close proximity geographically.

Having done so I've realised we in the UK are very culturally close to Germany, especially in the case of young people - the only major difference is that of language.

And the languages (Deutsch and English) are actually pretty similarm too.

The Europeans NEED Great Britain, the same is not necessarily true of Great Britain needing the Europeans.
In what way does Europe need Great Britain?

Geographical proximity does not equate into any sort of cultural or legal equivalent.

Very true. So why then should I *necessarily* feel more of an attachment to people next door than people abroad? Surely it would depend upon the nature of the individuals involved? Perhaps I prefer the idea of, say, the French health system to the British one, or the German transportation system? Also, why should I value my irritating neighbour with her silly cat over my close friends in Berlin?

btw, I *am* very happy to live in the country I live in, and would rather live here than anywhere else in the world...but am also quite prepared to question my values ;)

In what way does Europe need Great Britain?

The EU needs wealthy countries to finance itself. (That includes both the UK and France.) It's as simple as that. I don't have a problem with that either - if the money is spent right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/europe/04/money/img/net_givers2_gra300.gif

When you look at how the money is spent, though, you can see where the problem arises: Agriculture, admin and "others" (which means pensions) is either spent improperly or unnecessairily. (Don't click on the links!)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/europe/04/money/img/eu_cashflow_gra300.gif

I'm quite happy to have my money go to poorer areas in Europe, including areas of the UK, but not so happy with money going to an already rich French Farming subsidy.

Hope that makes sense :p

Its interesting how this threat has gone towards a attempt to define what britain is in terms of what its not which is of course allways an easy thing to do.

I agree a great deal with the person who said that britain has a much cleaer identity from the outside than from the inside.

To deal with the eu, its a difficult on that, for starters it appears one of the resaons that france "rejected" the consititution is that is not a french veiw of what the eurpoean union should become, so heres a thought for you, what everyone seems to agree apon is the common economic area - what russia wants to become part of (maybe) and also on such things as common police information and ease of travel across borders - withness switzerland

What should britain role in the EU be, people are correcte in saying we don't have to be in thier, world power we no longer are but still a great power none the less.

My own view tends to be britains role in a largely free trade stley EU should be high - as that matches our own internal approaches histrically britian has a great attachment to free trade - even when it is not in our best interests as a nation.

Britain role in a largely 'french stlye' eu should corrispondly be much smaller, its in frances direct intrest to set up a very socshalist style EU for economic as well as politcal reasons.

So were the EU goes will determine how involved we are, but i would prefer not to join a super state style EU, thier are certain princiaples were we all agree and so all the countries act the same way, but were we beg to differ i think we should be let to do so.

On the subject of the rebate, its a slight problem now, when it was started it was because britain was a poor nation in comparision and since we got little back it made sense.

But takeing it away now would make us net condtribtior, how big a problem you think this is bepend on if you are concered were it is spent, i dislike it all being spent on the CAP for a variaty of reasons, but would be happy to see it spend on brining areas of the new members up to much higher standards, after all the basic princpal of taxes is take from the rich and give to the poor. How much of a problem you think this is depends how nastionalstic you are.

Despite my veiws on a super state i have little problems with this, brining other nations to enjoy a good level of life, small stages at a time seems like a good way to preseve peace on the planet.

Just read the previous three pages, and found it interesting, at least the only overt (North) American wasn't trying to sell us on becoming an American State! :) (thank you for being to restrained and enlightening Cadillac-Gage)

I've recently read a book called "Britians Future" which was a spooky experience, as although it was published in 1967, the fundamental problems for Britain future direction are *still* the problems facing us today. It seems the only thing we British have been good at in the last 38 years, is to ignore the problem! :headbang: There are a few things I should clear up, before plunging on;The EU (prevoiusly Common Market), has always been seen as a political project - essentially to join European countries together in a loose/tight "superstate" (it's been loose or tight depending on who you asked and when you asked them!). Infact at the inaugration of the Rome conference (which resulted in the Treaty or Rome, the starting point for a common Europe), we British were the loudest voices calling for greater federalism in Europe. However, we then made it clear that we didn't see ourselves as being a part of that Europe!! You may be interested to know that the PM who gave that speech was Winston Churchill, and I think he
believed every word. After all, at this point he was a man who wanted to rally Europe together to rebuild in the face of an expansionist Soviet Union!

Europe would have been a political union as early as 1960 if allowed, the mechanism for this was a common defence policy championed by Germany and Britain (shock)in the late '50's (1956-7?), that would have allowed for a unified European command with forces from each member nation permanently commited to it. The whole deal was vetoed by the USA, who felt that a united (mostly socialist at the time) Europe, would more than likely have *joined* rather than opposed the Soviets. Maybe they were right? At any rate, the Economic union we have seen was the only way for Europe to become federated . . . .


We British were deceived by our own government (Lions led by Donkeys anyone?), in the 1970's vote to join the Common Market - since by that time the policico's in Britian *knew very well* that Europe was heading towards some sort of close political union. On this point, even though I am a staunch Liberal Democrat, I find myself more in tune with current Conservative party thinking . . . . :rolleyes:

So, to the point of the thread. Does Britian have an identity crisis. Yes, though Identity vacuum might be a better word, as stated earlier in the thread. The problem is that, as Britons, we are pulling our country apart *ourselves* - some of us want the Commonwealth back, some want to be European, some want closed ties to our "special" friend, the USA, some fear being made the umpty-tumpth state of the Union. Until someone comes up with a clear path for us, that has a consnsus of support within the country, we will continue to wander and drown (politically and econmically) in the global tide.

Should Britain be part of the EU? Not, as is - we'd be isolated and marginalised, our culture left to wither and die - replaced by an ersatz anglo-european one (pavement cafes in Tottenham et. al.). Also, the EU is too top heavy. A major problem with big states (and I include the CIS and USA here), is that they always try to centralise power, to the detriment of the fringes and local (downlevel) populations. Also, big states are more corrupt (it is easier to hide that $100,000 kick-back in a buidget of billions rather than millions), and can be influenced by lobby's more effectively (there is still only one person in charge of defense procurement in the USA. In the EU there are 25. At least until political union, when there will be one)

Basically, whan I am saying, is that I want to be part of a state that *only* centralises those powers that can *only* be controlled at high level (Leeds council should not have a direct say in British Foreign polict for ex.), or which are better (not just financially, that sometimes a myth) controlled at high level *without losing any local accountability*. This much is Liberal Democrat thought (which make their support for the EU baffling), but I doubt I'd see it.

I think that the only way we Britons can focus on finding a future path for politics and culture is to retreat in a self-imposed isolationism, and try to steer our own course for a while. We'd have to give up pretensions of superpower-hood, to be sure. But we'd be a much more credible voice on the international stage if we were seen to be a truly independant broker. Then when we have found our way, maybe we should get the jump on the various regional blocs and put our efforts into reforming and revitalizing the UN, even taking up Lord (Paddy) Ashdown's idea of offering our services as a permnent UN training base and cadre for the various policing operations.

Just my thoughts, be seeing you,
Geldhame

hey, When you say "EU funded in South Wales" you really mean British tax payer funded dont you? and the French men who built that plane, well done to them, a great European project built on British money, i mean its not like we Brits need that money for the NHS or combating little girls who enjoy nearly hanging 5 year olds, oh wait a sec.....
I suggest to everyone to read the lovly pamphlett the macmillan administration sent to everyone telling the people how membership of the EU would not result in a loss of Parliamentary Sovereignty and British Independence. What a bunch of Liars, sorry i mean Lawyers.
ive got an idea why doesnt everyone that wants to live in Europe can go off and bloody live there, let Britain be run by the British (im assuming Scotland and Wales would rather stick with our fairly liberal "tyranny" than the Jackboots of Europe).
ANYWAYS i think weve drifted from the point, this isnt suposed to be an EU forum but on British cultural identity. To me there isnt enough respect for authority being taught in our schools. Every kid knows his rights, but not his responsibility. Bring back a little corporal punishment for when they mis-behave and teach proper values in our schools. Some well meaning philosophers and wishful thinkers would call this indoctrination, and theyd be right, as Kids have no better natures and need to be taught one. The age old maxim will work:

"Bring up a child in the way he should go, and as an adult he will not depart from it"
(one of the very few pearls of wisdom from the bible)

"Bring up a child in the way he should go, and as an adult he will not depart from it"
(one of the very few pearls of wisdom from the bible)

What brutalise and humiliate them so they know how to do it to their children?

I think we are suffering an identity crisis in Britain. I think it's for one simple thng. British people are disappearing, no Scot, Welsh would sya they are British and the number of English saying the same thing i believe is falling fast.

Being British, as many people will know, is a myth, a political creation but it's one defined as much as by what we are not, a sense of other, than hat we are.

The traditional myths of British are to be against the odds to be fighting the evil over the water. Now that 'evil' has gone we suddenly loose our identity. of course Blair knocking the French about revives that spirit.

I think we are suffering an identity crisis in Britain. I think it's for one simple thng. British people are disappearing, no Scot, Welsh would sya they are British and the number of English saying the same thing i believe is falling fast.

Being British, as many people will know, is a myth, a political creation but it's one defined as much as by what we are not, a sense of other, than hat we are.

The traditional myths of British are to be against the odds to be fighting the evil over the water. Now that 'evil' has gone we suddenly loose our identity. of course Blair knocking the French about revives that spirit.

well let's see here

1500 (or so) years ago, there were primarily Celts and Britons in the lower two-thirds or the island of Britannia, and Celts and Picts in what is now Scotland.

Then between (what) 500 AD and 1000 AD there was the mass introduction of Vikings and northern Germanic tribes like the Angles, Saxons and Jutes into what is now England. Celts from Ireland came to Scotland to help settle Scotland and became known as Scotch Irish or simply Scots (from whom Scotland gets its name).

The Vikings, Angles, Saxons and Jutes sort of pushed a bunch of the Celts out of what is now England and into Wales and north to Scotland (there to mingle with the Scots and Picts and settled Scottish Celts)

If I'm not mistaken, the first kings of a unified England were the House of Wessex, people who were either (I forget which) Vikings, Saxons or Jutes... you know, Egbert, Alfred the Great, etc. This would have been circa 8th-9th century AD.

So England became known as a country, named after the Angles.

in 1066, a French-born Danish Viking (aka Norman) named William the Conqueror took hold of the lower two-thirds of Britannia (not clear on Wales) and brought Normans with him.

This means that Britannia was now made up of the English (Saxons, Angles, Britons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans, and a few Celts), Welsh (Celts), and Scots (Scotch-Irish, Picts, maybe a few British Celts).

Okay. Whew.

England stole the longbow concept from the Welsh and used it to conquer the Welsh. The English had more difficulty in conquering the Scottish, but that happened eventually.

When that happened (no idea about the date... maybe it was in the 14th or 15th century), one could say that, in reality, Great Britain was born.

(I'm not too clear on that final sentence...)

Great Britain was officially born in 1707 with the Act of Union. Under this act, Scotland was meant to keep its own judiciary and parliament....it has always had its judiciary, but its parliament was only returned to it after devolution in 1999.

ive got an idea why doesnt everyone that wants to live in Europe can go off and bloody live there, let Britain be run by the British (im assuming Scotland and Wales would rather stick with our fairly liberal "tyranny" than the Jackboots of Europe).
Europe’s really a place to visit rather than live. ^_^

as Kids have no better natures and need to be taught one
*wonders where you are getting your data from* Are you old?

This means that Britannia was now made up of the English (Saxons, Angles, Britons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans, and a few Celts), Welsh (Celts), and Scots (Scotch-Irish, Picts, maybe a few British Celts).
And the Cornish. (not sure of proper name here)
EDIT: That was your 'few British Celts'. ^_^