A superb lecture by an economic historian at University College London on the path to Brexit in Britain starting at the end of WWII, leading through the failure of the Commonwealth Strategy to entering EU under Wilson and Thatcher, and what came down. Fascinating and insightful. In your response stay away from the usual political tangles and messes.
David fb
(I long believed Britain and USA were mostly immune to totally self-destructive policymaking because the power elites were not stoopid but had long term intrerests they would protectâŚso âThere ainât gonna be no BrexitââŚWRONG!)
It was mostly British bigotry. Things like Polish workers being about to live in the UK and take jobs. The other issue were the costs involved with following all sorts of small rules out of Brussels.
The Pound had remained. A separate economic identity had remained.
The truth the UK and continental Europe do not ride together in the economic cycle. It makes sense. This is the bottom of the cycle for the US and UK. Oh and Japan.
Ask those who voted FOR BREXIT how they like the 350-million UK pounds PER WEEK being saved by the NHS. OOPS. Didnât happen.
[/quote]
Indeed. Media manipulation of the Chattering Classes was as rife in the UK prior to the Brexit vote as it was here in the run up to the 2016 election. More money for the NHS was trumpeted mightilyâŚand thatâs always been a hot button item.
[Matter of historical record rather than a political statement but âThe NHS is safe in our handsâ was an election phrase used repeatedly prior to 1979 election. We know how that turned out]
My husband has multiple phone convos a week with his brother in England and would warn him repeatedly that Brexit was going to pass. âYou donât know the English voterâ was the reply ⌠him having his finger on the pulse as a reader of The Daily Mail (a family embarrassmentâŚhim not even having a parakeet and a birdcage to line) Oddly enough, a similar convo in reverse went down with the US election.
I would be asking those who couldnât be arsed enough to vote how they felt the morning after.
I know history as taught in UK schools has historically tended to be Eurocentric (with a whiff of Colonialism thrown in), but seeing as itâs July 4thâŚ
Because it would make no sense for the USA to join. We already formed a union of quasi independent states back in the late 1700s. And weâve added a whole bunch of member states to the union since then, almost quadrupling the member count.
It seems to be working fairly well in general. A few hiccups from time to time, of course.
What surprises me is that it took the European states so long to see the advantages of banding together in a union of some type, especially after watching the growth and success of the union in North America. The benefits of free trade and travel between the members is significant. And the benefit of size is very useful when negotiating with countries outside of the union.
There was another union of quasi independent states across the northern part of Asia and into Eastern Europe. That also worked ok for a while, but it suffered from its initial formation, which was forced upon some members rather than the members choosing to join. It eventually fell apart from internal pressures and a poor economy.
So yes, there are benefits from unions of individual smaller states. The USA is already reaping those benefits, so would have little to gain from joining the EU. There is much more benefit to be gained by the smaller, still independent, states of Europe (and potentially North Africa and Western Asia).
