Jean-Claude Juncker (left), now president of the European Commission (voted by the European Council and recently by the European Parliament) was fiercely opposed by David Cameron. Britain and Hungary were isolated. “Instead of building alliances in Europe – said Ed Milliband, leader of the British opposition – ” he’s burned them”
I warmly thank Professor Piero Boitani for letting me publish here the letter to the British PM David Cameron he has just sent to the London’s daily The Independent.
Piero Boitani – a medievalist, Dante scholar, steeped in ancient myth as well as modern literatures – is Professor of Comparative Literature at Sapienza, University of Rome, and is also teaching at the Universities of Notre Dame, Indiana, and of Italian Switzerland.
He is also – among the rest, the list IS mind-boggling – Fellow of the British Academy and Honorary Member of the Dante Society of America (together with Umberto Eco.)
Here is Piero Boitani’s voice, loud and clear.
[a ‘Roman from Rome with ancient traits’ voice, I’d say. Wonder if he’d agree, he is not a reader of this blog, he doesn’t need to; links below are MoR’s, not Professor Piero Boitani’s]
Blue-eyed, pensive, P. Boitani is an extrovert despite his deep knowledge. Goethe wrote that “the one who doesn’t understand 3000 years of history, lives in the dark, unaware, from day to day.” It is not the case of Piero Boitani, as one learns by reading his magnum opus, Il Grande Racconto delle Stelle [quote from here]
Dear PM,
I have followed the recent developments in your attitude to the EU with a growing sense of concern and irritation. Since the age of 10, I have been a strong anglophile. I have studied in England, have taught and published there. I visit it at least once a year. Quite frankly, I do not understand your opposition to Juncker, which has left Britain isolated in Europe with Orban’s Hungary (sic!). Juncker is by no means the ideal President of the European Commission, but he is no worse than, say, Barroso. Was your opposition dictated by the fact that Junker is supposed to be a ´federalist´ and that he was indicated by the European Parliament rather than the governments? That is actually a more democratic method of indicating a new President than the old one of negotiations between national governments. Is Juncker against novelty or reforms of the EU? Well, governments can actually make Juncker do what they like, so if they want reforms he will pursue reforms.
In short, your opposition seems to me purely instrumental – dictated more by Mr Farage’s victory in the recent EU elections, i.e., by UK politics, than by the well-being of Britain. Unless at the back of it all be an unconfessed attempt at going with the presumed British feeling of annoyance with the EU. Threatening the other EU members with ‘The UK will leave the EU if Juncker is nominated’, or ‘Anti-European feelings in Britain will grow to the point that the 2017 referendum will turn out to be against Britain staying in the UK’, is quite inappropriate, and useless, blackmail.
Britain ought to examine herself very deeply on the matter of Europe. There is first and foremost a question of roots and culture. The cultural roots of Britain are European, from the 1st century AD to the present. Yes, there is also a different strain, wider and tied to the British expansion on the sea, and narrower because of its feeling of insularism and isolation from the Continent. But at the critical moments in history, Britain has always made a decidedly European choice, witness the Napoleonic wars and First and Second WW.
Secondly, there are political and economic reasons. Would the UK be better off outside the EU? Or, has Britain been worse off since it joined the then EEC? To say so would be a gross error. Has Britain been less ‘free’ since joining the EEC? You drive on the left and use miles, pounds, and pints. You have kept the pound sterling. You are out of Schengen. Is someone forcing you to eat taramasalata or sauerkraut? Or to learn ‘foreign’ languages? Or to surrender your navy to the Germans?
The European Economic Community. Courtesy of Britannica Kids. Source
What is there in ‘Europe’ that annoys the UK? Its bureaucratic structure? I admit it could be simplified and made more efficient, but you must yourself admit that a democratic administration for nearly thirty countries is not easy to achieve without a bureaucracy, and that the mandate of this bureaucracy is to uniform and unify, not keep the thousand tiny differences that exist within Europe. If you want free circulation of people and goods among those 30 countries, you will need laws – uniform laws all over – to protect that circulation. Didn´t the British Empire do exactly this, impose the same laws all over?
Or is it that Britain does not want a supranational European state, something many (not all) Europeans want so that Europe may count more in a globalized world? But Britain already is out of that state. It has ‘opted out’ of so many things. But to think that it can stop the others from having a tighter union if they so wish, wouldn´t that be considered presumptuous in any human relationship?
Yet the British public is annoyed by Europe (you will of course understand that the rest of Europe might be slightly annoyed with Britain). I suggest that the British public serenely and rationally examine themselves about Europe and decide once and for all whether they want to stay in or quit. Should they decide to leave, they should realize that they will give up, together with what they consider the disadvantages of being in the EU, also the advantages.
“Britain’s prime minister David Cameron holds a news conference during European Union leaders summit in Brussels today after Jean-Claude Juncker was nominated for European Commission president by an overwhelming majority.” Source and caption: Irish Times
One no longer is a member of a family, or a club, if one decides to leave it. They shall have to pay duty on their wines from Europe and grow resigned to selling less whisky in Europe because we will have to pay more duty on it. But at least they will stop having headaches about being or not being European, being or not being in the EU.
I confess that I feel upset when I have to show my passport upon entering Britain. I am particularly annoyed at having to change euros into sterling (something from which only banks profit) and having to buy plug adaptors for every electrical appliance I acquire either on the Continent or in Britain (something from which only the makers of such adaptors profit).
If Britain, at the end of such self-examination process, decides it wants to leave the EU, I shall be sad, but will face the situation serenely – and will give up my strong anglophilia without any further headache.
Piero Boitani
Rome
Man of Roma 
Perhaps it is immersion in the Common Law, rooted as it is in real cases by the law of precedent rather than in the halls of academia, that allows me the temerity to question, maybe only in my own mind, the opinions of Professor Boitani in his letter to the British Prime Minister. In doing so I shall endeavour to disentangle the personalities from the issues, dealing only with the latter, and I apologise in advance if I fail to do so or fall into a similar trap.
For ease of reference, I reproduce the paragraphs and deal with them seriatim.
1.
I have followed the recent developments in your attitude to the EU with a growing sense of concern and irritation. Since the age of 10, I have been a strong anglophile. I have studied in England, have taught and published there. I visit it at least once a year. Quite frankly, I do not understand your opposition to Juncker, which has left Britain isolated in Europe withOrban’s Hungary (sic!). Juncker is by no means the ideal President of the European Commission, but he is no worse than, say, Barroso. Was your opposition dictated by the fact that Junker is supposed to be a ´federalist´ and that he was indicated by the European Parliament rather than the governments? That is actually a more democratic method of indicating a new President than the old one of negotiations between national governments. Is Juncker against novelty or reforms of the EU? Well, governments can actually make Juncker do what they like, so if they want reforms he will pursue reforms.
Comment:
Indication by the majority party in the European Parliament for appointment to the Presidency of the Commission does not necessarily make the process a more democratic one, for a number of reasons. A) There is no requirement for the appointee to stand for election to the post B) the appointee may never have stood for any election to a representative body of the EU C) he is not a member of the Parliament and is not answerable to it D) Analogy to the British Parliament, which is sovereign, fails on all these counts and in particular the House of Commons has the power, in practical terms, to dismiss the Prime Minister: in form the Prime Minister has constitutionally to command the support of a majority if the House of Commons and if he fails to do so he is obliged to tender his resignation to the Queen, who is obliged to accept it.
2.
In short, your opposition seems to me purely instrumental – dictated more by Mr Farage’s victory in the recent EU elections, i.e., by UK politics, than by the well-being of Britain. Unless at the back of it all be an unconfessed attempt at going with the presumed British feeling of annoyance with the EU. Threatening the other EU members with ‘The UK will leave the EU if Juncker is nominated’, or ‘Anti-European feelings in Britain will grow to the point that the 2017 referendum will turn out to be against Britain staying in the UK’, is quite inappropriate, and useless, blackmail.
Comment:
This series of opinions does not take into account the will of the British people as expressed in the elections, which is not prompted by a sense of annoyance alone but also by a reasoned concern for the failure of the EU A) to accommodate and absorb a differing legal system and to note how Scotland, though within the UK, has preserved its own legal system for 300 years B) to meet established democratic expectations C) to recognise the perceived shortcomings in the rule of law and in the unfair distribution of the burdens and benefits of membership D) to satisfy an audit of income and expenditure. D) to accept the will of the people as expressed in democratic elections E) to make its deliberations public or to report intentions faithfully.
3.
Britain ought to examine herself very deeply on the matter of Europe. There is first and foremost a question of roots and culture. The cultural roots of Britain are European, from the 1st century AD to the present. Yes, there is also a different strain, wider and tied to the British expansion on the sea, and narrower because of its feeling of insularism and isolation from the Continent. But at the critical moments in history, Britain has always made a decidedly European choice, witness the Napoleonic wars and First and Second WW.
Comment
The British are restless under authority and it is not practical to tell them to examine themselves deeply on the question of Europe. Their democracy is an old one, they are politically sophisticated, they are likely to have made, and will continue to make, such examination of their own accord, and their governments are used to accepting the democratic will. Part of that sophistication is a willingness by the individual to accept a government that holds opinions diametrically opposed to her own and a corresponding understanding by government of the need to take into account the wishes of minorities.
It is not altogether correct that British cultural roots are European. There was a relatively advanced social system and culture in place on the arrival of Claudius in 43AD. He came principally for the rich mineral deposits and the Roman occupation was not initially taken easily. The indigenous kings were quick, however, to acknowledge the many benefits of an advanced civilisation and the occupiers were, in their turn,willing to absorb them into their system. It was the Roman way to crack down on rebellion with an iron fist, otherwise more of the existing system would have been left in place. Britain readily acknowledges the irrepayable debt it owes to Rome in so many ways, but its long presence here is as much to do with willing Romanisation as with force – a lesson in itself for the EU.
King Alfred, the only one of the Saxon kings to be called Great, the founder of the navy, the giver of laws, the translator of the bible into the vernacular, the conqueror of the vikings, the creator of England, was profoundly inspired and influenced by his visit to Rome as a child.
Britain has a tradition of classical scholarship and has been deeply influenced by it.
All this does not mean that England remained like Europe. With its roots in Saxon custom, the Common Law began under Henry II in the 12th Century and the first Parliament was called in the 13th Century, the century of Magna Carta. These roots are not shared with Europe.
It is not clear how resisting European threats in the Napoleonic and First and Second World Wars can be represented as a “decidedly European choice”.
4.
Secondly, there are political and economic reasons. Would the UK be better off outside the EU? Or, has Britain been worse off since it joined the then EEC? To say so would be a gross error. Has Britain been less ‘free’ since joining the EEC? You drive on the left and use miles, pounds, and pints. You have kept the pound sterling. You are out of Schengen. Is someone forcing you to eat taramasalata or sauerkraut? Or to learn ‘foreign’ languages? Or to surrender your navy to the Germans?
Comment
It is impossible to prove one way or another whether membership of the EU has been to British advantage. Its fortunes and those of Europe are naturally linked but that does not mean that it has to be part of the EU and the advantages of continued membership are, at the very least, controversial. Similar arguments were made prior to the UK referendum in 1975.
There is a sense that Britain is less free to determine its own affairs because of the EU. Apart from the pound sterling, the other influences mentioned are trivial.
5.
What is there in ‘Europe’ that annoys the UK? Its bureaucratic structure? I admit it could be simplified and made more efficient, but you must yourself admit that a democratic administration for nearly thirty countries is not easy to achieve without a bureaucracy, and that the mandate of this bureaucracy is to uniform and unify, not keep the thousand tiny differences that exist within Europe. If you want free circulation of people and goods among those 30 countries, you will need laws – uniform laws all over – to protect that circulation. Didn´t the British Empire do exactly this, impose the same laws all over?
Comment
There is annoyance, but it derives from the reasoned judgments set out in the set out above and the refusal to debate them.
Rome governed the whole of its empire with a tiny bureaucracy. There is in principle no reason why a modern democracy should not aim to do the same.
It is the mandate that Britain takes issue with. If European unity is truly desired, that mandate need not prevail.
The need for laws is not disputed. It is the nature of those laws, how they are created and how they are observed that count. As to uniformity, please see the case of Scottish Law within the UK cited in 2 above.
6.
Or is it that Britain does not want a supranational European state, something many (not all) Europeans want so that Europe may count more in a globalized world? But Britain already is out of that state. It has ‘opted out’ of so many things. But to think that it can stop the others from having a tighter union if they so wish, wouldn´t that be considered presumptuous in any human relationship?
Comment
Yes. All these matters are legitimate areas for debate.
7.
Yet the British public is annoyed by Europe (you will of course understand that the rest of Europe might be slightly annoyed with Britain). I suggest that the British public serenely and rationally examine themselves about Europe and decide once and for all whether they want to stay in or quit. Should they decide to leave, they should realize that they will give up, together with what they consider the disadvantages of being in the EU, also the advantages.
Comment
It is better to draw conclusions after debate not prior to it. It is possible for Britain and the EU to separate, but not Britain and Europe.
8.
One no longer is a member of a family, or a club, if one decides to leave it. They shall have to pay duty on their wines from Europe and grow resigned to selling less whisky in Europe because we will have to pay more duty on it. But at least they will stop having headaches about being or not being European, being or not being in the EU.
Comment
Again it is premature to reach conclusions on these matters prior to a debate on the larger issues. Will the EU debate them?
9.
I confess that I feel upset when I have to show my passport upon entering Britain. I am particularly annoyed at having to change euros into sterling (something from which only banks profit) and having to buy plug adaptors for every electrical appliance I acquire either on the Continent or in Britain (something from which only the makers of such adaptors profit).
Comment
Unfortunately, annoyances are an inevitable part of life. A proper debate on the longer term issues may lead to an alleviation of some annoyances, but not all.
10.
If Britain, at the end of such self-examination process, decides it wants to leave the EU, I shall be sad, but will face the situation serenely – and will give up my strong anglophilia without any further headache.
Comment
Britain will of its own accord continue its self-examination before and after a referendum, whether in or out of the EU. Many in the EU will conduct their own self-examination.
It would be a sad failure of the EU if anyone were to reject the call of one of its constituent states with all its diversity, different allegiances and varied opinions all on account of the prejudices of a fledgling institution and at the first major sign of dissent. It is not encouraging for the comity of nations.
Richard, I’m here only as a moderator, since I need time to write a book (and am about to go for my morning walk).
I also think that as now ex freelance journalist & fan of ancient dialectic the more strife there is the better is. Professor Piero Boitani has cast a stone, which being not his usual habit it is the measure I guess – he who at 10 was trying to translate Shakespeare into good Italian! – of how many people in the Continent find you islanders difficult to deal with. It is a fact, dear friend, not opinion.
Your comment is brilliant, I agree with Cheri. Point 6 might though be like an Achilles heel of yours (and of you people beyond the Channel).
Andreas has already replied on this (and other points) with his usual clarity of mind. I’ll wait for the strife debate etc. to unfold, will enjoy my walk (and will go back to my Manius story. I want to start with a new installment today. May dad help me from upthere, he was a good storyteller)
PS
I particularly appreciated the part concerning your pride as an Ancient Briton before the Roman conquest, it goes without saying.
All the best
From Rome’s West
Giovanni
Nicely put, Richard.
Several good points in your reply, dear Richard, some flawed ones, some wrong.
1. Indication by the majority party in the EU Parliament of the Commission’s President *is* more democratic than designation by the Prime Ministers. It *could* be even more democratic, of course, if he/she were elected directly by the people. But how many in Britain would support such an election? Incidentally, I never compared the European Parliament to the British one. I wouldn’t dare. Everyone knows England (not Britain) invented parliamentary democracy (not democracy tout court, since Greeks and Romans already had it), and everyone knows no one can do better than that. I have some doubts about the political sophistication of Britain when Britain overwhelmingly votes for Nigel Farage.
2. Of course Britain will examine itself of its own accord. No one is going to force that self-examination from outside. I merely state the need for it.
3. Cultural roots. If we go back to the Romans, then the only parts of ‘Europe’ which are not culturally ‘European’ are Ireland, Scandinavia, Germany beyond the Rhine, and so-called Eastern Europe. But we needn’t go back to that. Western Europe took shape in the Middle Ages from a strange mixture of Roman, Celtic, and Germanic elements. There was no dis-unity between England and the Continent either before or after the Norman Conquest. The languages used in England were Latin, French, and English. Scholars, clergy, etc. circulated freely, the language they communicated with each other was Latin, and this went on until at least the end of the 18th century. In writing his History of the English People, Bede (an Englishman) makes clear that it all started, and was still going on, with Rome. The Father of English (and Scottish) Literature, Chaucer, was strongly influenced by French and Italian writers. The Renaissance hit England and Scotland directly from Italy. Romantic poets such as Shelley, Byron, and Keats lived in Italy. Tennyson could recite the Divine Comedy out (in Italian) from whatever point one chose. Would you like to leave aside the Pre-Raphaelites, G.M. Hopkins, T.S. Eliot, etc.? Accommodate yourself. But PM Gladstone knew Dante Ariosto Tasso Leopardi and (personally) Manzoni and read out his translations from Dante to Queen Victoria.
Yes, as I myself stated, there obviously is a wider, ’empire-derived’ cultural stream in Britain. Who would be so stupid to deny it? But that is relatively recent, is not ‘roots’, and in any case English is neither Sanskrit nor Hindi.
England, and then Britain, was actively involved in European politics from the time of Cnut, then the Plantagenet Kings, then the Tudors, all the way to the Napoleonic Wars and the 20th century. May I remark that it took almost 300 years after the Norman Conquest for English to be used officially? That it took almost 500 years before the English monarchy gave up France as its possession? That when I was a child British coins still called the British King George VI ‘king of France’? (Incidentally, I have no objection to the euro coin having one side with the face of the Queen, provided the other showed a map of Europe). The wars against Napoleon would never have been won without Britain, the two WWs would never have been won without Britain — and Europe is grateful for that.
4. Yes, Scotland has its laws. The case of Scotland is very particular, as the September referendum there might prove. I have no objection to Britain (or England, should Scotland leave the UK) retaining its laws. But in dealing with legal cases in ‘Europe’, should we apply British law, or European law?
5. No, it is not ‘reasoned judgements’. I have lived in Britain (England, actually) long enough to know that deep down the annoyance or resentment is pretty skin deep. That it stems from a desire to keep things as they were or are. There is more sentimental attachment to America, in England, than to Europe. Basically, the annoyance stems from a feeling of difference, at times of superiority. There of course is difference, and we all love Britain for it. The point is, how much difference? And is this difference enough to get Britain out of the EU?
I often use a parable (but it is a true story) to explain this feeling of difference. Shortly after the entrance of the UK and Ireland in the then EEC, the nine Prime and Foreign Ministers of the EEC congregated in Rome. One evening my wife and I got a very distressed phone call from the then Irish Foreign Minister asking us if he could come to dinner because he was exhausted and didn’t feel up to facing dinner with the others. We said yes. He came. He was very upset and when I asked him why he replied that they had been discussing for ten hours 1. the colour of the future European passport, in the morning; and 2., what should be printed on the cover of that passport, in the afternoon and evening. The morning was spent in discussing whether the colour should be wine-red, as 8 members opined, or blue, as one thought because ‘we have always had it blue’. ‘I leave it to you to imagine who that one was’, he said. In the afternoon and evening the debate was between those who wanted ‘European Community’ in big letters at the top and the name of the country in smaller letters underneath (8, again), and the one country (the same) which wanted exactly the opposite. A compromise was reached after over six hours, and a row between Chancellor Schmidt and PM Wilson (accompanied by Callaghan), on ‘European Community’ at the top and the name of the country underneath, but in the same lettering. A Whole day wasted, wouldn’t you say? But, most important, with whom would you have sided?
6. Everything is subject to debate, but when one is part of a family, a club, an entity whatsoever which one has freely chosen, then one accepts the rules established by such entity and accepted by all in writing. Or not? Endless discussion of those rules with one member of the entity are fruitless. What irritates the rest of Europe is that Britain seems to want to stay in, but on its own terms and with its own rules, by taking the advantages of Europe and rejecting the disadvantages. Unfair, the ‘Europeans’ think.
7. ‘Unfortunately, annoyances are an inevitable part of life. A proper debate on the longer term issues may lead to an alleviation of some annoyances, but not all’. No, annoyances such as these should be eliminated, point blank.
8. Incidentally, I composed my letter to the British PM and sent it to the Independent. They, I imagine, have not published it. I clearly meant it to be an open letter to the British public. When my dear friend (and very distant cousin) Giovanni told me he was initiating a discussion on Europe, I sent him a copy and when he asked me whether he could publish it I said yes. It has generated a lot of debate, for which I am glad. It was neither undemocratic nor academic — I am simply not used to blogs and I think this is the first time I use one. British membership of the EU is of much concern to me — but not to the point of giving up Europe or of having Europe reduced to a free market area. We did have a more or less free market Europe before 1914 — it ended up in disaster. The euro, one Berlin taxi driver told me a few years ago, ‘is for peace in Europe, no matter what it costs’. I think he was right. Much more so the European Union, wouldn’t you say?
Dear Professor Boitani,
I am obliged to you for your time and trouble and particularly your courtesy in dealing with aspects of my contribution to this debate.
I need time to consider whether some of my contribution is flawed or wrong, as you state, or rather points of disagreement, and respond in due course. A first reading suggests your analysis is either an incomplete treatment of what I have said or an expression of opinion rather than fact.
Whatever is the case, I welcome your learning, which can only serve to enlighten. I am honoured.
Yours,
Richard
Me again! Iw shall repeat this comment after Part 3 of the debate since I am concerned it may have moved on without us.
Again I repeat your response in sections for ease of reference
Professor Boitani:
Several good points in your reply, dear Richard, some flawed ones, some wrong.
RIchard:
Without specific references, it is difficult to acknowledge errors, or otherwise, but I shall endeavour to respond to the tenor of your response as best I can.
B:
1. Indication by the majority party in the EU Parliament of the Commission’s President *is* more democratic than designation by the Prime Ministers. It *could* be even more democratic, of course, if he/she were elected directly by the people. But how many in Britain would support such an election? Incidentally, I never compared the European Parliament to the British one. I wouldn’t dare. Everyone knows England (not Britain) invented parliamentary democracy (not democracy tout court, since Greeks and Romans already had it), and everyone knows no one can do better than that. I have some doubts about the political sophistication of Britain when Britain overwhelmingly votes for Nigel Farage.
R:
I repeat, I acknowledge the irrepayable debt we owe to Rome and to ancient culture and civilisation in general, and you, no doubt, accept the significant contribution of British scholarship to their study.
If the nominee for President of the Commission were himself a member of the the Parliament, that would be marginally better. As it is, neither the Parliament, nor the executive, nor the bureaucracy enjoy the confidence, sophisticated or not, of the British public and such confidence is a pre-requisite to the social contract by virtue of which all democratic governments govern. It takes a certain sophistication, nevertheless, to identify the means and give effect to a protest vote. Do not judge by this the outcome of a general election here or suppose that it registers an anti-EU sentiment. The British people require a proper voice. Will the EU listen and work with our government to provide sufficient incentive to vote ‘Yes’ in 1917? It requires imagination, creativity, original thought and fundamental adaptation. At present, all seems rhetoric and no dialogue, particularly here, despite Giovanni’s brave efforts.
B:
2. Of course Britain will examine itself of its own accord. No one is going to force that self-examination from outside. I merely state the need for it.
R:
As already stated, the British people have already done so, and will continue to do so.
B:
3. Cultural roots. If we go back to the Romans, then the only parts of ‘Europe’ which are not culturally ‘European’ are Ireland, Scandinavia, Germany beyond the Rhine, and so-called Eastern Europe. But we needn’t go back to that. Western Europe took shape in the Middle Ages from a strange mixture of Roman, Celtic, and Germanic elements.
R:
Allow me to go back to those non-European cultures. Our Irish, Scandinavian and Germanic memes are alive and flourishing. After all, the Tynwald, at over 1000 years, a Viking inheritance, is the oldest continuing parliament in the world. The Isle of Man is a British Crown Dependency, not in the UK and not a member of the EU.
B:
There was no dis-unity between England and the Continent either before or after the Norman Conquest.
R:
Despite the fact that the Normans were of Viking origin, the vanquished Saxons and the sufferers of the atrocities committed by the Conqueror might have found it difficult to agree with you.
B:
The languages used in England were Latin, French, and English. Scholars, clergy, etc. circulated freely, the language they communicated with each other was Latin, and this went on until at least the end of the 18th century.
R:
It is not clear to which period you refer as to the use of Languages. Certainly, after 1066, until 1362, when Court proceedings were required to be conducted in English, Norman French was the language of Court although records were kept in Latin. Until that time, I thought, Middle English was developing as a purely oral language.
B:
In writing his History of the English People, Bede (an Englishman) makes clear that it all started, and was still going on, with Rome.
R:
I have heard of The Venerable Bede. Isn’t he pre Conquest? I have already acknowledged the profound influence Rome had upon King Alfred the Great.
B:
Father of English (and Scottish) Literature, Chaucer, was strongly influenced by French and Italian writers.
R:
I defer to you, of course, on these matters.
B:
The Renaissance hit England and Scotland directly from Italy. Romantic poets such as Shelley, Byron, and Keats lived in Italy. Tennyson could recite the Divine Comedy out (in Italian) from whatever point one chose. Would you like to leave aside the Pre-Raphaelites, G.M. Hopkins, T.S. Eliot, etc.? Accommodate yourself. But PM Gladstone knew Dante Ariosto Tasso Leopardi and (personally) Manzoni and read out his translations from Dante to Queen Victoria.
R:
Influence and admiration of other cultures does not need to displace one’s native culture. The Renaissance came late to England, notably in the 16th century. By then, the Common law was well established (alongside other systems), Magna Carta -1215 – and Parliament were part of our developing constitution. All these figure prominently in the English culture and heritage of modern times and are not shared with continental Europe. The absence of any regard by you, Sir, of these features of British life is telling of the whole separate psychology of the EU and the UK.
B:
Yes, as I myself stated, there obviously is a wider, ‘empire-derived’ cultural stream in Britain. Who would be so stupid to deny it? But that is relatively recent, is not ‘roots’, and in any case English is neither Sanskrit nor Hindi.
R:
No-one should assume another’s stupidity. I deny that our culture is empire-derived. Its separate roots are far older than the heyday of the British Empire and it is important to recognise this in order to free minds of this somewhat banal caricature that conceals the true issues. It is more true to say that Empire was culture-derived, but that would be an over-simplification.
B:
England, and then Britain, was actively involved in European politics from the time of Cnut, then the Plantagenet Kings, then the Tudors, all the way to the Napoleonic Wars and the 20th century.
R:
England was certainly drawn in as a result Geographical imperatives and of political ambition in both directions. That does not involve, necessarily, a blending of cultures.
B:
May I remark that it took almost 300 years after the Norman Conquest for English to be used officially?
R:
I refer to this in more detail above.
B:
That it took almost 500 years before the English monarchy gave up France as its possession?
R:
King Henry II secured the French possessions in the first half of the 12th Century, as I recall, and they were lost by his son, King John, and they were never fully recovered. They were the subject of that series of conflicts known as The Hundred Years’ War. Henry let his French possessions slip out of his control and by 1453 the only French possession was Calais. Then the Wars of the Roses were the principle concern in England
B:
That when I was a child British coins still called the British King George VI ‘king of France’? (Incidentally, I have no objection to the euro coin having one side with the face of the Queen, provided the other showed a map of Europe).
R:
Perhaps I am untypical, but these things simply do not bother me. Could I be a lurking republican? ……[thinks]….. No, the Monarchy is good value for money and provides apolitical continuity.
B:
The wars against Napoleon would never have been won without Britain, the two WWs would never have been won without Britain — and Europe is grateful for that.
R:
Thank you for that. It is those who made sacrifices in those wars that count and they came form many places besides Britain, and the British people owe everything to the people of the US. The crew of Nelson’s flagship, The Victory, at Trafalgar was fully cosmopolitan. My direct ancestor was the last survivor of the Battle of Trafalgar – he was a maintopman there on HMS Ajax. 🙂
B:
4. Yes, Scotland has its laws. The case of Scotland is very particular, as the September referendum there might prove. I have no objection to Britain (or England, should Scotland leave the UK) retaining its laws. But in dealing with legal cases in ‘Europe’, should we apply British law, or European law?
R:
The House of Lords had supreme jurisdiction as the highest Court of both Scotland and England. Where necessary it applied Scottish Law to Scotland and English Law to England, thereby achieving a measure of unification by evolution. As for trade, contract law, the basic law of trade, is different in Scotland and England, one being derived from Roman Law, the other from the Common Law of Trespass. That did not prevent full cross-border transactions. There has always been a foreign element in contract law and in most cases it is possible for the parties to select the law which applies. The real question is one of jurisdiction and English Courts apply English Laws of construction to contracts adopting foreign law, hearing proof of foreign law as a fact from expert witnesses.
B:
5. No, it is not ‘reasoned judgements’. I have lived in Britain (England, actually) long enough to know that deep down the annoyance or resentment is pretty skin deep. That it stems from a desire to keep things as they were or are. There is more sentimental attachment to America, in England, than to Europe. Basically, the annoyance stems from a feeling of difference, at times of superiority. There of course is difference, and we all love Britain for it. The point is, how much difference? And is this difference enough to get Britain out of the EU?
R:
You ignore the diversity of opinion, allegiance and feeling in this country. Whilst selfish motives may predominate, (as they do in any free market), more credit has to be given to the reasoning powers of ordinary people and their innate reasonableness. Forty years serving such people taught me not to underestimate them.
B:
I often use a parable (but it is a true story) to explain this feeling of difference. Shortly after the entrance of the UK and Ireland in the then EEC, the nine Prime and Foreign Ministers of the EEC congregated in Rome. One evening my wife and I got a very distressed phone call from the then Irish Foreign Minister asking us if he could come to dinner because he was exhausted and didn’t feel up to facing dinner with the others. We said yes. He came. He was very upset and when I asked him why he replied that they had been discussing for ten hours 1. the colour of the future European passport, in the morning; and 2., what should be printed on the cover of that passport, in the afternoon and evening. The morning was spent in discussing whether the colour should be wine-red, as 8 members opined, or blue, as one thought because ‘we have always had it blue’. ‘I leave it to you to imagine who that one was’, he said. In the afternoon and evening the debate was between those who wanted ‘European Community’ in big letters at the top and the name of the country in smaller letters underneath (8, again), and the one country (the same) which wanted exactly the opposite. A compromise was reached after over six hours, and a row between Chancellor Schmidt and PM Wilson (accompanied by Callaghan), on ‘European Community’ at the top and the name of the country underneath, but in the same lettering. A Whole day wasted, wouldn’t you say? But, most important, with whom would you have sided?
R:
That is a sad tale of inexcusable conduct. I agree these matters are of less then peripheral concern.
B:
6. Everything is subject to debate, but when one is part of a family, a club, an entity whatsoever which one has freely chosen, then one accepts the rules established by such entity and accepted by all in writing. Or not? Endless discussion of those rules with one member of the entity are fruitless. What irritates the rest of Europe is that Britain seems to want to stay in, but on its own terms and with its own rules, by taking the advantages of Europe and rejecting the disadvantages. Unfair, the ‘Europeans’ think.
R:
In my experience, to the extent that they are aware of the rules, it is an absorbing hobby in England for club members to criticise them and constantly revise them, to the great advantage of all. Perhaps it is our ‘unwritten’ Constitution that encourages that. Nothing need be written in stone anymore.
B:
7. ‘Unfortunately, annoyances are an inevitable part of life. A proper debate on the longer term issues may lead to an alleviation of some annoyances, but not all’. No, annoyances such as these should be eliminated, point blank.
R:
Maybe you expect too much of any man-made institution.
B:
8. Incidentally, I composed my letter to the British PM and sent it to the Independent. They, I imagine, have not published it. I clearly meant it to be an open letter to the British public. When my dear friend (and very distant cousin) Giovanni told me he was initiating a discussion on Europe, I sent him a copy and when he asked me whether he could publish it I said yes. It has generated a lot of debate, for which I am glad. It was neither undemocratic nor academic — I am simply not used to blogs and I think this is the first time I use one. British membership of the EU is of much concern to me — but not to the point of giving up Europe or of having Europe reduced to a free market area. We did have a more or less free market Europe before 1914 — it ended up in disaster. The euro, one Berlin taxi driver told me a few years ago, ‘is for peace in Europe, no matter what it costs’. I think he was right. Much more so the European Union, wouldn’t you say?
R:
Thank you for telling me. Welcome to the blogosphere, but beware of being misconstrued.
I do not share your objection to the free market. I do not blame it at all for WW1, if that is what you are suggesting. Nor do I subscribe to the view that peace in Europe depended on the creation of the Euro. Let us hope that it does not fail, for then it might.
I am not a scholar and it is with considerable diffidence that I engage with you, fully cognisant of your standing and authority. But all these points of disagreement I feel deep in my bones, irrespective of my origins, which doubtless are of motley hues. There is a way forward together, I feel sure, it is only through tolerance and patience, over a protracted period if necessary, that we shall find it.
Britain’s place within (or without) the EU is one big topic. Whether Juncker was the right person for commish is another big topic. How the EU develops as a whole (with or without Britain) is a third, and the biggest.
Nobody is excited about Juncker, not even Merkel. He will be the next commission president because of the weird head-game his rival, Martin Schulz (German, SPD), played with the concept of Spitzenkandidaten. Somehow the German SPD convinced all Germans and most Europeans that it is more democratic if each party nominates a top candidate and the one from the strongest party then automatically becomes commissioner. They were hoping it would be Schulz, but now it is Juncker.
That Spitzenkandidaten method, however, is barely known outside Germany and alien to many Europeans. It is also not enshrined in any EU treaty. Cameron was right to question the method and insist on the prerogative of the Council to nominate a commissioner which the parliament then confirms. He was wrong only to persist in his blocking after it became clear that he left himself isolated.
Merkel and other members of the German elite want Britain to stay in the EU. They view the UK, with Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Austria and Poland as a liberal bloc with interests in less state-centric economic models. Britain’s exit (a BREXIT, it’s called) would hurt the EU in many ways. The main one may be that the EU could go in a wrong direction, the sort that France is associated with.
But the big question is where next for the EU as a structure, with or without the UK. For most of my life, the direction was “ever closer union”, with ever more integration. The result of the May election is that people no longer want this. So we may have to switch from a “hamiltonian” model to a “holy roman empire” model. The former is named after Alexander Hamilton, who gave the loose confederation of the United States a stronger federal constitution. Here the EU in effect becomes a country. The latter is named after the 300+-member Holy Roman Empire as it came to be after the Thirty Years War. Here sovereignty stays with the member states in all but a few areas, under the principle of subsidiarity.
In the euro zone, a “looser union” will be more difficult, of course, because with the currency we are now attached at the hip. Hence “banking union”, as it is now coming to pass and other attempts to integrate and align these different economies.
Sooner or later, however, we will discover in the EU that we need each other. Putin may provide the impetus in the east. American may provide it in the west, because it will gradually retreat from the continent, leaving us to look after our security ourselves. And we can only do that together.
Juncker is not a big topic if reform is properly debated, including the precepts forming the present character of the EU.
It is interesting you say that Merkel was primarily concerned with internal politics. Otherwise, I imagine, she would not have allowed the SPD to influence her decision and defer to their views as to the democratic nature of Juncker’s selection. It is promising that informed opinion in Germany concurs with Cameron’s view in this regard. There is nothing wrong with isolation. There is a point where pragmatism must give way to principle. Rather it may be the EU’s unbending adherence to principle that is to blame.
You note that there is, after all, substantial sympathy for the British approach within the EU. That alone justifies Cameron’s stand. Let us hope that a proper, open debate ensues from which all parties are prepared to learn and to achieve a better understanding of each other.
You are concerned now about the direction of the EU without Britain. Let us not be too hasty. There has been no serious debate yet and Brexit is by no means a given. Our worries do, however, need to be addressed. Those worries centre round the clash of legal systems, the disappointment of democratic expectations and the perceived unfair distribution of burdens and benefits. The EU is not normally noted for quickness to act or ready response to crisis.
It is the nations of Europe that need each other, with or without the EU. I have some sympathy with the Russian nervousness about EU ambitions. Whatever lessons may be drawn from the historical structure of Europe and other systems, this is a modern problem that requires imagination, flexibility and – essentially – a proper debate, respectful of all points of view.
For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the final paragraph of my comment is to be construed as excusing Vladimir Putin’s rôle in facilitating the horror of MH17 or his failure to provide proper help and influence in the aftermath.
@Andreas
Very good points, Andreas. Just one quick note. The ultimate fate of the Holy Roman Empire on the one hand, and the success of the United States of America (at least for the last 200 years) speak for themselves.
Brilliant responses to every paragraph, particularly your line that “…they [the British] are politically sophisticated…” AMEN.
If there is any brilliance, it has been much influenced by your own. Thank you.
The tendency toward discerning and emphasising national personal or psychological differences is largely unhelpful. CG Jung was a great one for doing so. He said, for instance that German over-development of reason led to an inability to control emotions properly and that the well-differentiated emotions of the French explain their eminence in mathematics.
All such generalisations are dangerous and can easily develop pseudo-racial hostility. Reason dictates that we discover, value and operate by our common humanity. A common humanity that is overwhelmingly confirmed by modern genetics and by history alike.
Following Richard’s rather excellent response, I thought I would take a slightly different tack so here’s my two pennies’ worth.
First, to whom is this letter addressed? To Cameron when, in fact, it’s not for Cameron but for the British public. This letter is to chastise Cameron for his opposition to Juncker. And yet, the letter appears in the Independent. This probably excludes 80% of the population. It’s what might be called an “epic fail”.
If Mr Boltani wishes to speak to the people of Great Britain, then he picked the wrong place and the wrong method to do so. I saw no mention of this letter in the other papers I read daily. Boltani may as well have whispered it in the corridors of the EU parliament for all the good it will do. You want to say something to the British people? Then engage them; make them feel part of the dialogue.
He talks about democracy when, in fact, the people of Britain (and, to some extent, of Europe as a whole) don’t feel there is much that is democratic about the EU. Most people don’t even know who these people are! The problem with the EU controlling powers and people is that they are such a long way from the ordinary person who lives in Europe. I live in Italy where, for some time now, we have been run by someone who isn’t elected by the people, so here it is accepted. But, in Britain where, as Richard rightly says, a PM without a mandate is required to tender his resignation to the Queen and fight (if he/she wishes) a new election, it is not acceptable. The problem is that, even if there is democracy in the EU, it is not seen as democratic.
And there’s a lack of understanding. I don’t think that Cameron’s reaction was so much a result of Farage’s victory as in what that victory emphasises with regard to the feelings of the British people. And Cameron’s future as PM is dictated by the will of the (near-)majority of Britons – namely the next general election. He needs to be re-elected. He will do what he thinks it will take to BE elected. THAT’s the reason for it. He’s trying to emulate Thatcher (at least in the eyes of the electorate.)
I’m with Richard 100% of the way regarding culture. British culture is completely different from Europe. Our influences have come not only from Europe but from the Empire. There are a number of words in English that come from, for example, India – but it’s not just the words it’s many other things. And, as for making a decidedly European choice – has he not noticed it was only when it seemed that a European power was getting out of hand and, therefore, could be a threat to us or our business that we joined in the “fun”.
The fact that Britain managed to retain some things does not mean that some things have not been “lost” to Europe. Petrol is now sold in litres, sugar in kilograms. He simply has no idea how the changes we made to accommodate the “European way” affected us! (I speak on a personal note as I was at school at the time)
As Richard rightly says, it is the mandate that annoys us. And, to be honest, the thousand tiny differences are really important. Trying to change most aspects of a person’s life and habits in such a short time is counterproductive. People (and, certainly British people) tend to push back the more someone pushes against us. Stop it! Brussels should be the light hand, guiding countries towards unity. Not introducing laws to make Europe homogeneous which, after all these years, we are not.
The desire for a tighter union was the reason for Britain becoming involved in the wars in Europe. He’s right in one way, we are scared of a supranational state right on our doorstep – in the same way that we were scared of Hitler’s desire for a homogenous Europe. And I’m really not sure that the majority of European citizens would be in total agreement with him. But has he even asked?
I too get annoyed about having to show my passport when I return to the UK – and mine is a British passport! I too wish that Britain had the Euro – it would make my life so much easier. But I fully understand the reasoning. I joke with my fellow Italians that the reason Britain hasn’t adopted the Euro is simply because Europe won’t let us have the Queen’s head on the Euro notes and coins. But is it really a joke? After all, underlying this is the fact that someone is telling us what to do. If someone asks me nicely and it doesn’t make me feel bad or harm me or mine, then they will probably get what they want. If they try to tell me what to do or make me do something, I tend to, at best, ignore it.
And if, at the end of this, he can happily “give up my strong anglophilia without any further headache” should Britain leave the EU, then I think he’s misunderstood the meaning of anglophile. My love for Italy and for things Italian is not affected by the bad things about Italy or the bad things that Italy may do. I love Italy in spite of these things. Perhaps he might want to reconsider how strong his anglophilia is, if, in fact, it exists? You can’t just love the country and the people because they do everything you want, you know?
WOW, Andy, I understand your point(s). You make the annoyance of Britain VERY clear (also with splendid, convincing, writing, incidentally.)
Although, in my view – as I’ve expressed it below, annoyance (yours, ours, no matter who’s) is just a tempest in a glass.
A BIG TSUNAMI with waves unheard-of is about to crush us all (us Europeans, at least, if not tighter united: we are cornered I guess).
That you don’t see this tsunami arriving makes your insulation, well, dangerous. Or, worse, you see it and you don’t give a dam because you think it won’t reach you. IT WILL. I did foreign affairs free-lance journalism for a decade. IT WILL (imo.)
MoR, thank you for your kind words.
I have to add that this is my view of how Britons see Europe and my response to the letter where the author clearly didn’t understand the British thinking.
On a personal note: it would suit me much better if the UK WERE an integral part of Europe. Italy is my home now and, barring some unfortunate event, will remain so for the rest of my life, So, Britian being of part of Europe would be great for me.
It is important, in my view, that Europe’s movers and shakers comes to terms with the fact that not everyone wants to blindly follow them. They need to make the case for Europe (even if I personally think there should be some radical changes in the running of Europe.) They need to speak and listen to the British people. They need to do a sales job on Europe, not just expect the people of the UK to agree with what they see as right.
Most of all, there needs to be discussiobn – proper discussion with arguments made for and against and reasoning understood. And much listening, on both sides, done. I mean “listening” not just “hearing”.
I am intrigued as to what this tsunami might be? The last one (the banking crisis) was bad enough and the aftermath is still with us today. What on earth do you envisage coming next?
Europe could be a great force for the good of the people but it will only work if the people feel part of it, are MADE to feel part of it. Europe’s leaders and the author of this letter don’t seem to realise this and this, not Britain’s staying or going, will be the downfall/success of Europe.
Well, you have a lot of qualities, not only as a writer but as a thinker imho.
[P. Boitani] clearly didn’t understand the British thinking .
From what I know of him, he probably knows the English better than you, also for the fact that he can see them from the oustide, a big advantage, my friend.
I am intrigued as to what this tsunami might be? What on earth do you envisage coming next?
The fact that you are asking is not only evidence, as small as it may be, that I may be right (little matters) but of the fact that you people beyond the Channel are blind.
Scary.
You are still the shepherds in many things for many folks (Australia etc., the US to a lesser degree, but u have imprinted them) and for us too (we need you & and we are fascinated by you, not only MoR lol, since you are our exact opposite.)
Well, where will the sheep go if the shepherds got lost in the mist?
This is the widespread impression ‘on the Continent’ (as sensed by the MoR)
Working on your text btw.
Thank you “Without Prejudice” (an apt legal term, for those who may not be aware, placed in correspondence to signify that the engagement is a genuine attempt to settle a dispute and may not be referred to in proceedings), for your kind remarks and for so tactfully, importantly and accurately extending my comment to cover the general election that invariably follows the resignation of a prime minister in such circumstances.
I agree with everything you say. It is a pity to exclude the Euro for all time, though the circumstances for acceptance have never been right.
So much depends on whether the EU wants to listen to us and accommodate us or not. All this is reminiscent of the de Gaulle “NON!” and the inherent rejection of and aversion to our ways.
I did not know the Professor’s letter was an “open” letter.
Sorry Richard. Because of an old blog that I started and immediately stopped on WordPress, and then me forgetting to change the name and blog reference, you got the Without Prejudice name – my bad.
You are right that the letter was not an open letter – although sending it to the Independant meant that he wished it to be published, I would think. I misread the “sent to The Independant” as “published by them”. Again, my mistake.
I think that, in the same way that the EU could not permit Greece neither to default nor to leave the Euro, the EU will not want to see the UK leaving. I note in the headlines this morning, Juncker is already suggesting that the UK negotiate to take back some power (but I’ve only read the headline so it doesn’t mean it is so.)
That’s OK Andy. I’ve been caught the same way, only I never apologised.
Junker has claimed he is no longer a federalist and doesn’t now believe in a supra-national state. He says:
“I’ve never opposed the idea of a well-structured, well-organised profoundly negotiated repatriation of competences from Brussels to national parliaments. I don’t want the EU without Britain. Britain is an essential element of policymaking in Europe because the British are a commonsense and down-to-earth people.”
Actions speak louder than words.
The fundamental flaw in the philosophy of those who direct the affairs of the EU is that they see the law as a means or instrument to control peoples and the ways individuals react one with another so as to force compliance with their wishes.
This not only pre-supposes that the ruling elite knows best but also expects too much of the law. Statute law, to be effective and to be obeyed, has to respond to the collective demands of the people and it is the job of governments to discern those demands, as far as they are able. Their function, in the interests of freedom, extends no further then that. Relations between individuals emerge from actual cases and the body of decisions constitutes, under the system in England and Wales, and operating elsewhere, notably in the US Constitution, is the law of precedent, or the Common Law. This approach is not incompatible with a supranational state, as demonstrated by the US, although it did fight a gruesome civil war to maintain it. Fortunately, the UK is willing to give effect to the will of the Scottish people as determined by a referendum, however inadequate.
From the desire to shape the world according to the narrow ambitions of a few powerful people and the use of the law for that purpose flow all the ills of the EU and, if there is no change of heart, spell its ultimate failure and the loss of a unique opportunity, marked, perhaps, in the first instance by the withdrawal of the UK. This will be a matter of deep regret to me personally, since in 1975 I voted to remain in the Common Market.
I share the desire for a peaceful, productive and compassionate future not only for Europe but for everyone yet I am now concerned how the EU might conduct itself with the rest of the world, a much more difficult task than how to conduct itself with the UK.
I see our moderator has chosen to foreshorten debate by diverting attention. I must hasten away
You must not. Please stay, Richard, you are so necessary.
I admit, being overwhelmed, that I was not clear in my latest post. I was simply announcing the beginning of Manius re-written (or re-loaded, as the young would say).
It is *here*, Richard, in any case.
[And, incidentally, I hope I am more clear now, the link to the new Manius being in the first paragraph of my newest article]
Let us hope evil will not triumph (in the Europe vs the UK relationship; in my novel (which counts zero, of course;) in our hearts – the eternal battle – most of all, sodalis.
I’m sorry, Giovanni. I was too previous. It just shows how easy it is to get the wrong end of the stick.
I relish challenge and like to be persuaded for that leads closer to the truth. But I do not like “Strife”. Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons is a spectacle and an acute embarrassment. It does little to relieve tensions and more to invent and exacerbate them.
That’s OK Andy. I’ve been caught the same way, only I never apologised.
Junker has claimed he is no longer a federalist and doesn’t now believe in a supra-national state. He says:
“I’ve never opposed the idea of a well-structured, well-organised profoundly negotiated repatriation of competences from Brussels to national parliaments. I don’t want the EU without Britain. Britain is an essential element of policymaking in Europe because the British are a commonsense and down-to-earth people.”
Actions speak louder than words.
How can we rely on anything Juncker says when he believes in concealing true intentions and lying where necessary? He needs to explain this or else he will have no impact, irrespective of his pending appointment – I doubt he holds any sway with the British public anyway. Selecting him has compromised the EU’s voice in Britain. Cameron was right to stand firm, as he warned that he would. I advise examining the small print in Junker’s above remark.
MoR–Thank you for the invitation to the discussion. I confess ignorance of the European and English politics but I will venture the observation that, personalities and specifics aside, the basic issue seems to be a fundamental argument that has divided mankind since the time of Plato and the ancient Greeks.
At one extreme were the Spartans who believed in sacrificing everything for the state. It is said that a Spartan woman met a herald returning from a battle and said, “What is the news.” He said, “Your three sons have been killed.” She said, “Fool! That is not what I asked, were we victorious?” Less extreme Athenians (I’m generalising) felt that one could live a life in pursuit of self interest, but that it should be done with moderation and a sense of justice toward others.
Whether you want to blame Adam Smith, El Nino, or the Kardashians, today that concept of self interest has been taken to the extreme where moderation and justice are secondary concerns, largely because of the sense that if someone else gets something, there is less for me, so my goal is to get everything. These ideas get reinforced by things like the reunification of Germany and the boat people debate in Australia. How fair or right you think things are is based on your personal (real or perceived) benefit or cost.
More and more Europeans, and I think the UK from day one, have decided they are tired of being thwarted in their efforts to get more/all and are seeking to disestablish or destabilise mechanisms which perpetuate that. Cf, something closer to where I am, the efforts of China and the US to get economic hegemony in the South Pacific.
Thank you for your contribution, Thomas.
[Saying this to readers who don’t know: ]
Here’s an American and excellent writer (I’ve read his last ‘Identities’ on my kindle: jaw dropping for a number of reasons) who has moved to New Zealand. WOW, WOW!
I am here only as a moderator, Thomas, since I am writing my novel too lol.
You are instead, I do hope, part of the game – but ur writing your next novel as well damn damn.
Let us have fun, my friend, whatever we have / we are inclined to do.
MoR
Without an indepth understanding of plate tectonics, it is difficult to say where Europe is going.
As far as I know, the U.S. is heading away from Europe. Therefore, flights from, say, Berlin to Atlanta are much longer today than they would have been a few million years ago.
I’m not sure, though, whether Europe is chasing the U.S. by moving westward as well (albeit at a slower clip than the American continent is drifting away from Europe), or if the continental European shelf inches toward Asia.
Cyberquill! Welcome friend. We badly need your sharp Austrian tongue. And, only important to me (I know too well), the Manius story has been rewritten and reloaded, as my latest post attests.
M(anius) P(apirius) Lentulus
Congratulations on your rewrite of a story I somehow missed you had written in the first place.
Regarding the European question, I have now carefully perused Mr Boitani’s letter as well as the ensuing debate in this forum. Therefore, I am in a better position than before to comment constructively on the matter.
The first thing I would do — the technical details will have to be worked out by others, as I am not an engineer — is to fill up the English channel with concrete, thus effectively turning the main British isle into a peninsula. Aside from practical benefit of enabling the transportation of passengers and goods between Britain and France without causing either seasickness or claustrophobia, the elimination of the channel would alleviate British separation anxiety from its mother continent — which, let’s face it, is the true source of Britain’s persistent harping upon its independent identity relative to “Europe” — and help its subjects feel more like they’re part of a larger family. It would render them less averse to retaining their membership in a club whose appelation contains the loaded term “European.”
Second, as an additional incentive to remaining with the EU, Brussels should pass a resolution saying that if Britain pledges everlasting EU membership, the Queen and her successors will be allowed to add the words “Queen/King of Europe” to the list of honorifics on their business cards. This would constitute a powerful gesture on the part of the EU, but since British royals technically don’t govern anything anyway, it would have zero practical consequences.
See, the British must be dealt with on a psychological level primarily. Having been cut off by the whims of geography from the rest of us, they don’t really know where they belong. We must gently nudge them in the right, i.e., southerly, direction.
Well, Cyberquill, if we needed evidence that your Mittle Europa Sinn fuer Humoreske is problem solving …
In any case, in order to reassure you, I remind you your role in my novel.
________________
Manius and Qwil having been caught by the beautiful Witch [see the chapter Sacrifice] are tied up one next to the other for a Celtic rite etc. (still have to make up my mind about that).
Manius, recognizing his schoolmate, exclaims:
“Qwil!! What are you doing here!!”
“Same thing as you: showing my butt up in the air.”
“When did you arrive in Britannia?”
“When did we arrive … more than one month ago.”
“What? You mean …”
“That the whole crazy bunch is with me, except Quintus. They are British, after all. They wanted to rescue you and at the same time fight for their country in danger.”
“We have been looking for you for weeks. Then thanks to Pavlos, a Greek merchant with a good informers network across the country, we have localized you blah blah”
Manius: “That’s why you were dressed like an Angle?”
Qwil: “Well, being of Germanic race and getting along decently with the local dialect I sneaked out of the taberna blah blah …. AHHHHHHHHHH! ”
Qwil’s cry interrupts the narration. A red welt is showing across his buttocks […] The blows continue to fall upon Qwil’s rear and reach the number of nine.
While the lashes continue to fall I am instead taken by slaves into the cubiculum where the Witch is waiting for me.
The walls are frescoed with delicate floral motifs that form the backdrop to scenes in which nymphs, satyrs and humans chase one another with Cupids busy to bring the joys & torments of love. In front, a bed of fine wood inlaid with ivory, tortoiseshell, and gold. There the sorceress, almost naked, lies, in all her amazing charm, her green eyes flashing.
AHHHHHH AHHHHHH AHHHHHH
I of course try to save you, you are my ol’ schoolmate. So I tell the Witch, who has started to caress my head, neck (and other parts I will not mention):
“Qwil, the young man who was tied next to me, must absolutely be set free. He is not an Angle, but a Roman like me, and, perhaps, you.”
AHHHHHH AHHHHH
Now, as you can see, the novel is amazing, you play a big role, and can’t believe you have forgotten it.
Lentulus and the Witch start in any case making love and continue oh for many hours.
The sky is full of stars. When dawn arrives, the most beautiful ever occurred in the last 100 years, a regrettable noise is there to disturb such an idyllic scene:
“AHHHH … AHHHH …. AHHHH … AHHHH ”
“AHHHH … AHHHH …. AHHHH … AHHHH ”
________________
Ok, ok, ok, it was a joke, a horrible one, please forgive me ok? I fear your tongue pal, try to understand. I am eccentric like you, my fancy is heated (but am not as gifted as you as for humour, I’ll admit)
😦 😦 😦
Ah, so my name is “Qwil” and I’m getting lashed by a topless virgin. Once your novel is finished, are you planning on publishing it as an ebook?
As a book (and as an e-book) but the name(s) can (actually *will*) be changed. Thing is, the reloaded version has no relation with real people, it is NOT autobiographical and so forth. The version 1.0 names can be kept, but it is up to the readers. All this in any case is in the hands of the publisher. All I have to do is *writing*. I, being not as young as Andreas, have to focus on just one task or I’ll get crazy (which I am in any case no matter what)
“I fear your tongue…” Roma, ow, that is the most loaded phrase in decades.
No, CQ, this will not work. For one thing, there is the well-known English legal maxim cuius est solum eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos – wait a bit, isn’t that Latin? Anyway, that would mean that the concrete would have to reach from the centre of the Earth to the stratosphere at least. Brighton would lose its sunlight and the council would successfully appeal the matter from the Supreme Court to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”), which does not recognise the jurisdiction of the highest UK court.
In any event, collection of volcanic ash from Mt Vesuvius to render the concrete waterproof raises health and safety issues and is banned by EU regulation.
Far better to move the Austrian Alps, which float on a sea of magma. It is easy to convert them to float on water and tow them down the Danube to the Black Sea, through the Bosporus, the Aegean and Mediterranean, past Gibraltar (a war zone) and Trafalgar, through the Bay of Biscay (it’s time the French possessions there, illegally seized in the thirteenth century, were returned to England) and anchored, half on the English Channel and half on La Manche. That way they will rise up and down with the tide and Brighton will receive proportionate sunlight.
Your concerns as to psychological damage and transport to Britain will be met by the use of elephants. One of the commenters here is an expert in this field and he has told me so.
Don’t worry about the Queen, we can cope. The increase in tourism will amply compensate, particularly if Salzburg is attached.
It could be done, I suppose, although, as I said before, I’m not an engineer by training. All I can do is furnish a vision. Speaking of which, my plan was to connect Britain to the mainland, not separate it further by replacing the English Channel with a mountain range.
I love it CQ! Your wit and humour are unbeatable and a very necessary salve for the injuries this debate might cause.
And I know too that you are well able to progress the substance of the debate.
Easy Richard. No injuries at all. Dialectics, the lesson not only of Zeno, Plato etc up to Hegel but of your Olaf Stapledon as well, is based on the simple fact – also a child can observe it in real life – that debate and even strife lead to a better understanding or in any case to enrichment.
This blog is humble evidence of this principle. I am left-wing and a big number of my commenters are right wing: among the best I’ve ever had!
So the EU wants strife? I thought we’d had enough of that.
Pistols at dawn?
Ah ah ah. No, no, Richardus. I am by the way playing Bach chez un ami. I have only this phone. I can’t do what u asked.
[‘GMT+2 12:12’ update] Now, on second thoughts, after my rough comment at 2 am, YES, “pistols at dawn”, my friend 😉
Permit me to return to *a comment I left* on the previous posting.
.
The beauty of the plan I laid out, is that it provides a real choice to the countries of Europe over which club – the EU or the EFTA – they’d like to be part of. I mean, isn’t choice, and isn’t freedom, what free-market Capitalism is supposed to be about? To be free to choose which club you’d like to join. To be free to choose whom you wish to associate with.
.
The EU club, with 27 member states, is far too unwieldy. Far better to have a more workable EU club with just the 18 Euro members; and an EFTA club comprising its current 4 members, plus the 9 non-Euro countries. This would make an EFTA of 13 members.
.
For Britain, the attraction of being part of this re-vivified EFTA would be that Britain would be its Big Cheese, in the way that Germany is the EU’s Big Cheese. Britain, after all, hasn’t been a Big Cheese of anything since the demise of its Empire.
.
And, the likes of Spain and Greece, for which the Eurozone has been a catastrophe, might wish to change clubs, and to join this revivified EFTA.
.
I believe this plan is an idea whose time has not only come, but is overdue. Should it ever come about, the Man of Roma blog will go down in the history books as the site on which this plan first found voice.
The more you talk about this, the more I think you have the answer. The Eurozone’s trade surplus with the UK could lead to an easing of trade restrictions with EFTA.
Membership of EFTA was always seen as the runner-up: de Gaulle’s relentless blocking of the UK’s entry entry to the Common Market seemed to lead some to want it even more. So Edward Heath was anxious to get in on almost any terms, which he did. By the time of the referendum we were heartily sick of all the arguments and voted for the fait accompli. The dust is being shaken off the same old tired case. Some saw the writing on the wall and voted against.
As Andy says, we are very different from Continental Europe and if the EU genuinely wants us to stay, it will need to recognise this and guarantee us a proper say, commensurate with our ample qualifications to do so, in its future structure, which will inevitably be a two-tier one in order for the Euro is to succeed. The Eurozone needs to get its currency on a proper footing before it can do anything. Otherwise, as you say, our energies should be devoted instead to EFTA.
It all really depends upon whether the “IN” campaign will successfully play on our very natural fear of isolation and loss of trade.
There is still no certainty that the referendum will actually take place, of course. If there is no referendum, I shall appoint you President. A very worthy choice.
Ciao Giovanni. It’s the Antipodean Ear. I hear your reverence for Prof Boitani and his learning. I also hear a man thinking about some personal matter that still rankles which, in his mind, is connected with the UK not joining the EU. Maybe one of his friends from school didn’t come to his birthday party. Maybe something happened on one of his yearly visits to London. Something is jabbing him from the past, poor man, so he seizes on the eternal debate about the UK joining the EU because he can take his resentment for a walk.
Dear Solid Gold, I am happy and excited that you are here!
I have reverence for Professor Piero Boitani because I have reverence for deep knowledge and pluck, like I have reverence for the amazing English culture or I wouldn’t try to write a novel with it at its centre
I guess there is some cultural shock here, as it is normal. Professor Boitani is ardent, like many people from here and from Rome. He’s upset because he has dedicated his entire life and mind to England and its culture, he has changed quite a lot in order to achieve that. While the English have not changed much.
Your comment appears on the same wavelength as those of the English (Andy is a bit italianised, and yet … LOL), not much surprising given your history.
You gave me incidentally ideas for Europe’s debate num 3, dear friend from the Southern hemisphere.
Molte grazie amica australiana.
Man of Roma
Ok, I am only the moderator here but I guess this needs some explaining
[id est the opinion of an ex high school teacher – problem being, who will moderate the moderator? I digressing a lot you can skip the words between square brackets for a quicker reading]
Solid Gold Creativity’s comment, though Antipodean, seems along the line of Richard’s, which stimulates reflection, we all thank her for being here with us. Should you viste her blog you’ll realise she is what her nick promises.
We could now imagine that Great Britain is A., Continental Europe is B., America is C., China is D, India is E, Russia is F, Brazil G, Nigeria H and so forth (Nigeria incidentally is the most populated and wealthiest African Sub-Saharian state with, according to Citigroup, the highest average GDP growth in the world between 2010–2050).
Collective entities (states, subcultures within states etc.), exactly like individuals or families, tend to survive. So do lions, apes, ants etc. We being ALL biological.
[The contribution of French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamark was important (the notion / term ‘biology’ as we use it today, the co-foundation of evolutionism) but England’s naturalist Charles Darwin was THE man of evolution and England’s Francis Crick, USA’s James Dewey Watson, New Zealand Maurice Wilkings, noble prizes as for he DNA, confirmed Darwin’s brilliant theories. So hats off Anglos, as the Canadians would say]
States being therefore entities that tend to survive (and should we accept this premise) they may have conflicting interests since struggle for survival is not gentle. Evidence of this may be the irritation, yesterday, of Germany’s premier Angela Merkel who, according to the left-wing Guardian …
[that loves to criticize the Tories (but also according to Bavaria’s conservative / centre SüddeutscheZeitung.de: “Mitarbeiter des Bundesnachrichtendienstes BND und des Verteidigungsministeriums haben offenbar für die USA spioniert … Kanzleramt beschränkt Kooperation mit US-Geheimdiensten … Möglicherweise hatte der Verfassungsschutz schon vor vier Jahren Hinweise darauf, dass ein Mitarbeiter des Verteidungsministeriums für die USA spionierte … Nach der Enttarnung zweier mutmaßlicher US-Agenten in Deutschland reagiert die deutsche Politik empört. Das Bundeskanzleramt schränkt nun die Zusammenarbeit mit US-Diensten ein]
… asked the top representative of America’s secret services in Germany to leave the country.
With this backdrop in mind I will now continue with a comment I had written for Richard and other English people and had never posted for lack of time:
“Allow me to be clear, beloved friends, my position being not dissimilar from that of Professor Piero Boitani …
[who, I do hope, will be now willing to further interact with us he being not only exceptionally knowledgeable (and very busy alas), but deeply religious and a man of good will in the sense of the Gospels, not many doubts about it]
… although here I am speaking for myself, naturally. We don’t want strife, we Continentals, we do not only learn English as lingua franca (but because we love the culture too), but we badly need a tighter unification. See Andreas’ rational comment even though I am more for a ‘federalist’ solution (gradual, of course, but why not? Not a sin that I know, or all Americans would go to Hell) to better face the challenges of a world that is changing in ways unknown before.
If you search through the posts & comments of this blog – the one on ‘Britain as the Trojan horse of Europe’ being only one of them – I’ve said it ad nauseam at least 100 times to the extent even the pebbles of Roman alleys whine all night long being bored to tears.
I mean, many people in the US are always talking about their national interest. The UK, also. I cannot but understand this. Better still, national – or regional – interests I deem vital for every collective entity.
Now it turns we Continental people have also our regional interest. Is it good? Is it bad? Well, if you accept my premises – that people united in societies tend to survive and struggle for a better life – it is in the nature of things (of creation, evolution etc you name it).
That is to say that we, Continental People blah blah …”
Hope my point is clear enough. If not, I’ll change it.
You seek to draw an analogy, Giovanni, between political institutions and biological organisms. I question your premises.
The evidence is that social animals tend to survive better than solitary animals. That comes from Darwin himself.
Attempts to apply this to political considerations have long been discredited. For one thing, Nature selects not for the more social organism per se, it only does so if the organism’s more social attributes equip it better in its struggle with Nature.
It is apparent that individuals and more successful social organisations are in a divisive struggle with the EU, a struggle that is the opposite of a social attribute.
That is not to say that we should not strive for peace and friendship one with one another in an organisation of one form or another, but that does not mean that any particular form should prevail against the rest.
If you wish to press the biological analogy, then consider that day-to-day adaptability to ever-changing circumstances, often radical, is the very process by which an organism survives and evolves. That, perhaps, is the deeper lesson the EU needs to learn, or it will destroy itself from within.
[*Woken up by a chirp chirp from his phone at 2 am in the morning*]
My dear Richard, you English people are as hard as a rock behind a polish of polite manners, so let’s see who’s harder since we have the rocks of the Alps here.
I DON’T GIVE A DAMN about my premises (and you too but will never admit it).
We Continental People – Germany, Austria, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Holland etc etc – need a *tighter* unification to survive before the huge challenges ahead worldwide so we will get it, and a tiny rainy island like yours – blinded by a past of only 12 generations and lost in an opiate dream that she can still count something – cannot stop it.
Evidence my words are not a-blowing in the wind is the absolute defeat of Mr. David Cameron.
I am not different from Professor Piero Boitani, we’re both true Romans, ardent and good-natured, but when it comes to fighting for a cause we believe in, we Romans (and Italians) have guts superior to yours, believe me (not to mention the contribution to world culture by the Italians and by the Continentals that is overwhelmingly superior to England’s, du point de vue cumulatif mais pas seulement cumulatif, les Italiens suffice.)
Besides, the fact that I love Britain, I love you and Andy, the English IT student I had a rimpatriata with today, Solid Gold and the US Wasps etc etc but also love the French, the Germans, the Austrians, the Spanish, the Russians the Chinese, the Indians (and I know decently enough 7 languages) is evidence of the fact that I am cosmopolitan in space and time, non parochial, while you people beyond the Channel … I’ll stop, I don’t wanna be too rude to friends.
[I didn’t by the way mention Professor Piero Boitani since he’s immensely more cosmopolitan than me]
Thus said, next Sunday I will cheer Germany, not Argentina despite the blood bonds with this country and my love for Pope Francis. The upcoming match is already called here the ‘match of the two popes’.
As you can see, Roma, not Londinium, is at the centre of everything 😉
I am naturally disappointed that you have such antipathy towards my country and its hopes for a united and peaceful Europe.
It serves no purpose to describe in detail my inner devastation. To do so would only defeat the object of true peace and cooperation, an object which many of whose home happens to be on the contiinent must share.
Our (pragmatic, anti-ideological God be thanked!) PM Matteo Renzi – in his recent speech when he took over the rotating presidency of the EU – said more or less :
“We want the UK to stay in Europe. We badly need Britain and the UK and their amazing contribution!”
Italy, for the record (a Daily Telegraph’s article), “is catching up with Spain and Ireland, the top performers in the Eurozone for some time,” said Christian Schulz, senior economist at Berenberg.
“The performance of the reform countries contrasts favourably with reform laggard France” he added.
Which makes me deeply sad but doesn’t change the big picture. Au contraire.
One finds allies in surprising places:
… “[the bourgeoisie ] compels all nations on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word it creates a world after its own image … The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected, provinces with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class interest, one frontier and one customs-tarriff…
And later:
“ … the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it can’t help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.” [The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels, 1848]
Pity, though, about the invective.
From reading all the comments on this posting and the previous one, and from all I’ve read elsewhere about the European Project, there are just four important things I’ve learned:
.
1. There are always two reasons why we do or say anything: the stated reason, and the real reason. The stated reason is usually lofty, and the real reason is usually squalid.
.
2. Leaders act always out of self-interest, as do the nations they lead. If you want to know why a leader acts the way he does, just “follow the money”.
.
3. The Euro is simply an experiment that was always going to fail unless its participants merge into a single federal state. This won’t happen, for all the obvious reasons.
.
4. Britain will remain in the EU because Big Business wants this.
.
Now, I can go back to just reading novels………..
Canada, at last! I knew it, Christopher, grazie (since Canada is special, readers, a bit European & a bit North American, speaking both English and French which, provides a bigger mind picture of things I have little doubts about)
[The novel has to wait, damn, me not being English mother tongue I toil for every sentence damn]
A bit cynical Christopher (the Money thing is of American influence – the worst America, of course) but overall true in my opinion.
Only num 3 I don’t agree. Not for idealism but for the simple reason that a Federalist USA was born because cornered by a big enemy (the British Empire, that would have crushed its colony with one thumb had not France helped them for balance of power reasons, I agree … ) and Europe now is cornered much in the same way by an enemy that is greater and more dangerous than the British empire: the drifting away in economic decline in the course of the next 20-30-40 years (a matter of debate if 20 or 50: FAST in any case), which my friends may not be seen by ‘islands’ such as America, the UK, New Zealand or Australia (I say it with affection) but it is on the world Press every day it is dangerous to be that blind and not in your (selfish) interests most of all.
Thomas Hobbes is with us I guess, Christopher.
And Anglos, wherever you are, of the North or South hemisphere: what do your think?
I need Lichanos now. He’s busy constructing his philosophical blog but I’ll wake him up (not at 2am though 😉 )
“…. (the British Empire, that would have crushed its colony with one thumb had not France helped them for balance of power reasons, I agree … ) … “
Perhaps, Giovanni, you will provide authority for this statement. As I recall, there was substantial support in the colonies for the British Empire.
I am not a scholar, Richard, I’m only a very lousy school teacher.
Yes, most ex colonies remember the UK with affection. Its power was just, India (only an example) is a huge nation because of them, the Hindu, Muslim from the Subcontinent (but also from Egypt: this blog is a lot about Egypt and Tunisia not only because of history, we Italians ARE Mediterranean) do not entirely dislike what the British have done (apart from Israel, THAT was a big mess hundreds of thousands of people are paying day by day, enlightened Jews like Lichanos agree with me.)
Nevertheless an Empire is an Empire – the British, the Gupta etc. -, it is not made for the benefit the conquered.
The Roman Empire may have been a little bit different – it was, ancient times are not modern times – but also in that case it was not. Not the time here. My posts on Julius Caesar suffice and say also of the genocides committed by our genius, Caesar.
Thus said, these brief notes sum up my thought as a reply to you , my friend. You are a just man (the UK is full of just and decent people) and everybody likes you for this reason.
Thank you, although I was speaking specifically of the thirteen American colonies.
…Nevertheless an Empire is an Empire, it is not made for the benefit the conquered…
I draw your attention the parallels between the EU as presently constituted and Empire.
@Richard
I was speaking specifically of the thirteen American colonies
I told you I am a lousy school teacher, Richard.
Fundamental and immutable questions about freedom have been lost in this war of words.
The most well-meaning enterprises can suffocate freedom, a fragile creature, with heavy-handedness and a swathe of unifying laws and regulations, providing opportunity for the less well-meaning.
The EU has driven its overloaded charabanc too far down that road and we need to be vigilant. Moreover, as a result, it is less well equipped to deal with global challenges. (See, incidentally, the timely warnings of the Bank of International Settlements of a looming financial crisis worse than 2007.)
What else, after all, were the tragedies of the twentieth century caused by other than threats to the freedoms of the innocent?
What threatened, in the 20th century, and threatens them in our nascent 21st one? Big capital and big oil greediness along with Imams and Ayatollas fanaticism intimately intertwined and easy fodder for, East and West, North and South, the universal military -industrial complex. That complex survives every crisis; it even fosters them for it’s very own benefit. What is better to revive a faltering economy than a nice war? Preferably one fought on the soil of weak countries…in need of defense, of course.
Am I cynical or just plain realistic?
A combination of both, Paul. All the forces you mention are a threat when in the wrong hands and require our vigilance. Here we debate Europe, which has already, in the twentieth century, despite its claims to civilisation and advanced culture, shown its propensity to create global conflict and destruction on a massive scale.
That propensity is rooted in leaders’ arrogance, their high-handed sweeping away of opposition and a refusal to consider, in the bowels of Christ, whether [they] may be wrong. Oliver Cromwell, the author, as you will recall, of the italicised words, might have done better himself to consider the general good before pursuing his fixed vision. We in the EU might learn likewise.
I’ll make just one partisan point here. Under the Common Law, freedoms are assumed, while under Civil Law systems they exist only if granted. That is the irreconcilable schism which divides the legal systems of England and Wales from those of the EU. There is no need for legal unification where the objects are the same. Law-making sovereignty needs to be returned and, except where there is common consent, the obsession for having the same laws throughout Europe abandoned.
It is good to be in conversation with you again, Paul, and I trust you are in good health.
My health is good enough, thank you.
In another post you refer to Scotland and it having kept it’s laws for 300 years. Well, Québec, under the British raj has also kept it’s civil laws and is governed by Canada’s British inspired criminal code. We have a Canadian and Québec rights and freedom charters and we enjoy real freedom of speech and thought.
Yet, as in Scotland and other venues, some 30% of the population wants out of Canada…while remaining in an as yet to be defined association with it. The only sure thing, no Canadians want to be USAers, save, maybe, for our prime minister providing he could keep the Queen as head of state…go figure.
A wonderful, illogical , human admixture, Paul.
The desire to regulate and put everyone’s life in good order, or rather to conform to the strict and narrow fantasies of a ruling elite, is not only pathologically obsessive, but dangerous.
Hybrid systems are volatile and liable to split asunder, of course, but they are none the worse for that, and probably last longer.
Long Live French Canadians!
Richard, you asked for it man.
Potsoc had said:
“Big capital and big oil greediness …the universal military -industrial complex. That complex survives … What is better to revive a faltering economy than a nice war? Preferably one fought on the soil of weak countries … in need of defense, of course. Am I cynical or just plain realistic?”
Richard had replied:
“A combination of both, Paul. All the forces you mention are a threat when in the wrong hands and require our vigilance. Here we debate Europe, which has already, in the twentieth century, despite its claims to civilisation and advanced culture, shown its propensity to create global conflict and destruction on a massive scale..”
MoR:
Richard (& Paul Potsoc, en tant que French Greek Canadian), continental claim to civilization goes well before the 12 generations you always refer to (speaking of Italy, since I am Italian – it goes up to 150 generations – we were helped by Greece and by ALL Mediterranean countries, Egypt most of all – perhaps more than 150 according to latest research: Rome seems now 3000 years old, but in any case.)
You “folks beyond the channel” ’s memory is always short, since you entered some civilization only with the spread of Christianity (which came from Rome) and yet remained significantly barbarous (Magna Charta is an exception) since you continued to be the poor of Europe, pls allow me friend, until the end of Renaissance – Shakespeare *was* barbarous despite he being a big genius and Dante was chosen by British scholars as the best Western author of the last Millennium (if I well recall, but it is *my* evaluation, I know both authors pretty well, I wonder if you “folks beyond the channel” LOL know Dante as much as we … basta, you have a sense of superiority that might impede your minds to open up, which is a problem for you, and will be even more in the future … my friend.)
So Christianity and Renaissance.
Christianity – we have discussed, we blogging pals, a lot. Renaissance, a lot less. It is important, though less than the former (since without Rome – my opinion only, P. Boitani here disagrees I guess – Christianity would not have conquered the West, it’d now be a minor religion, England Scotland Ireland plus big parts of the Continent’d now be non Christian.
As for Renaissance, Italians again dictated wisdom, knowledge & refinement from the millennia – as the Elizabethans attest: see my Volpone the Fox by Big Ben post: you forgot to comment – and continued, the Italians (inspired by the Greeks: Plato backfired) to be great in many fields until the 18th (Stradivari, Canova etc.) but decline progressively seized us since – not unified into a big nation like France or Spain: we were un-national, ie universal, Church-like, Roman Empire-like, like the Germans: complicated, see Antonio Gramsci (1891 – Rome 1937,) another Italian genius much appreciated in the Anglo-Saxon countries by both aisles – but we are BACK (as the great Thatcher had observed with fear) since – as French Braudel said, not by chance historian of the LONG period – “big civilizations never really die” and we, it is a fact, are a civilization cradle – like India, China, the fertile Crescent – not you, it is ascertained (by the way, India and China are back too, as it was obvious: THIS is the tsunami I was talking about, NOT the next possible financial crisis, Andy forgive me)
Let me end up with the Renaissance, and quote your scholar’s – Preserved Smith (my 50? 60? copy of the Britannica) – Renaissance entry. He thus explains our (now ended: but we are not any longer at the centre of the West: Europe, if more unified, can be one of its poles, in a multi-polar world) decline and the pagan roots of our society (when Christianity arrived our culture was already much sophisticated, differently from yours):
“Italian society was hardly aware that the New Learning it had mostly contributed to create had provoked an intellectual force of stupendous magnitude and incalculable explosive power […] Why should not [Italian] established institutions proceed upon the customary and convenient methods of routine, while the delights of existence were augmented, manners polished, arts developed and a golden age of epicurean ease made decent by a state religion which no one cared to break with because no one was left to regard it seriously? This was the attitude of the Italians when the Renaissance, which they had initiated as a thing of beauty, began to operate as a thing of power beyond the Alps”.
Oh I forgot.
We continentals have created global conflict and destruction on a massive scale?
Forget the Tories history books, man. Global conflict (two world wars) exploded because France and especially Great Britain had eaten up most of the cake (id est had colonised most of the world.)
Germany justly thought she – I love nations as women, I find them more attractive this way – was no inferior to them – she was superior, man – hence “destruction on a massive scale”.
Ille dixit
😉
Run for shelters, war has begun. I wish we were, you, Richard and I, seated for real at your Café so we could, over a good scotch discuss and mediate that conflict. We are all a bit right and a bit wrong. Half of me goes back over a 150 generations, the other half goes all the way to the Franks, I guess; should I go to war with myself?
[@Richard too]
I wish that too dear Paul. You have been one of the biggest contributors to this cafe, to other cafes and to yours, now moved to FB where you can better connect to your beloved ones.
I will come back to Canada, for sure. England, I might go soon. You Paul have now a house in Spain. We can only hope, friends 🙂
[and run for shelters
]
The Spanish house is my daughter-in-law’s, not mine.
I know. But she’s a gentle woman.
I can trace my origins to the Great Rift Valley, where all cafés began.
Hello cousin.