Nationhood: why Brexit hasn’t happened
A number of people have recommended this article by Christopher Caldwell that appeared in the Claremont Review of Books, entitled “Why Hasn’t Brexit Happened?”
It’ well worth reading. A few excerpts:
In Britain as elsewhere in the world, the struggle [reflected in Brexit] has been unleashed by innovations in administration that have arisen since the Cold War. These shift power from electorates and parliaments to managers of information, inside government and out. From thousand-year-old constitutional ideas to five-year-old ones. From habeas corpus to gender identity. Because it was Britain that did the most to construct the ideal of liberty which is now being challenged, Brexit clarifies the constitutional stakes for the world as nothing else…
Many statesmen warned from the outset that British ideas of liberty would not survive a merger with the E.U. The most eloquent early diagnoses came from the Labour Party, not the Tories. That is because the fundamental disposition of the E.U. is to favor technocratic expertise over representative government, and the Tories have not generally been the British party that placed the highest priority on the passions of the masses.
So there’s a reversal, one I noticed earlier, in which the democratic referendum is currently being championed by the right rather than the left.
Continued:
The E.U. destroyed the system of parliamentary sovereignty at the heart of Britain’s constitution. For all its royalist trappings, Britain has traditionally been a much purer representative democracy than the United States, because it excludes courts from reviewing legislation on any grounds. British politicians tried to calm the public with assurances that, where British law and E.U. law clashed, British law would prevail. But the acknowledgement of E.U. legal supremacy in the treaties meant that E.U. law was British law…
Here’s the portion of the article that summarizes what I consider the most important aspect of the Brexit battle and what it means for a nation to become a member of the EU:
From the outset there was a dangerous asymmetry of motives. Britain had nothing against its neighbors on the continent—it sought only the right to make its own decisions again. The E.U.’s leaders, however, had an incentive to inflict maximum hardship on Britain. In most member countries the E.U. was being blamed for stagnating economies, dizzying inequality, and out-of-control immigration. If Britain were granted a pain-free exit, others would follow suit…
Brexit is an epochal struggle for power, and an exemplary one. It pits a savvy elite against a feckless majority…
…[T]he [Brexit] vote had been about not just a policy preference but also an identity. It raised the question for each voter of whether he considered himself an Englishman or a European, and of whether it was legitimate to be ruled by one power or the other. As such it made certain things explicit.
If you think about the history of Europe, you might observe that some European countries are relatively recent. For example, Italy only became a united Italy in 1861, Germany in the 1800s and in particular in 1871 (and of course there was the recent split into East and West, and the reunification). I’m not going to tackle France—it’s complicated. But we saw how fragile the unity of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were.
That doesn’t mean that countries such as Germany and Italy don’t have a strong sense of national unity. The UK is even older as an entity, but actually not all that old either:
The medieval conquest and subsequent annexation of Wales by the Kingdom of England, followed by the union between England and Scotland in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, and the union in 1801 of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Five-sixths of Ireland seceded from the UK in 1922, leaving the present formulation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.[note 12] There are fourteen British Overseas Territories, the remnants of the British Empire…
England itself has a far more ancient feeling of nationhood, having become a unified state by the 10th Century. Gilbert and Sullivan expressed it in a somewhat humorous way, but it’s something very real (or used to be, anyway):
I’m no history expert, but all that national history I went into is a way to indicate that the concept of a nation and the history of a nation isn’t the same for all nations, and some are apparently more willing and eager to give up their sovereignty to an entity such as the EU. In addition, the EU wasn’t originally sold as having as much control as it subsequently has exerted. Many people are resentful and afraid at giving up so much autonomy to elitist bureaucrats they haven’t even chosen themselves, and I believe their fear is fully justified. And yet it stands to reason that those very same elitist bureaucrats who seek more power are loathe to give it up just because the people want them to do so.
And it is no accident that one of the major beefs (although by no means the only one) that people have with the EU is its dictating of the terms of immigration to countries that used to be allowed to decide such things for themselves, which is an essential function of nationhood.
[NOTE: I explore the origins of the European war on nationalism in this post.]
I agree 100%. In particular, this: “Many people are resentful and afraid at giving up so much autonomy to elitist bureaucrats they haven’t even chosen themselves, and I believe their fear is fully justified. And yet it stands to reason that those very same elitist bureaucrats who seek more power are loathe to give it up just because the people want them to do so.”
They aren’t called the “Ruling Class” for nothing.
I could never understand why a nation that would fight off control by continental countries for well over a thousand years would then sign herself over to control by unelected European bureaucrats. I know Her Majesty doesn’t comment on such things but I wonder she thinks, and her father before her would have thought, about the EU and Britain becoming a quasi-subject to it.
Susanamantha on September 11, 2019 at 3:34 pm said:
I could never understand why a nation that would fight off control by continental countries for well over a thousand years would then sign herself over to control by unelected European bureaucrats. ”
The nation(s) that did (give Wales credit here too), didn’t.
Scotland, which was nearly depopulated of the independent minded during the clearances, and the Irish Irish counties of Northern Ireland, did.
These latter are people who had no political liberty and self-determination to amount to anything in the first place.
I had lunch with my English friend today. He’s as bewildered as I am as to what will happen. According to him, at this point there are four ways a new parliamentary election can be triggered:
1) A vote of no confidence (Labour/Lib Dems called for this for years, then declined just recently because they fear they’d lose the election.)
2) A vote of Parliament to call an election (60% required; Parliament just voted not to do this)
3) A vote not to accept the Queen’s Speech when Parliament re-convenes
4) A vote against the budget presented at the time of the Queen’s Speech
I have read commentary suggesting that Boris Johnson might load the Queen’s Speech and/or the budget with things Labour simply can’t vote for, thus triggering a general election. But my friend says at this point it’s such a mess that it’s anyone’s guess. (He’s pro-Brexit.)
Italy and Germany were kept separate as a function of French national policy, originally articulated by Cardinal Richelieu. That was blown up by Napoleon III and resulted in the unification of the central European states (and three wars between France and Prussia/Germany in 70 years). Richelieu wisely thought that the German states fighting among themselves would not pose a threat to France.
Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were cobbled together states that came about at the end of World War One, much like the cobbled together states carved out of the former Ottoman Empire.
It is not only the Brits who are rebelling. Think of the Yellow Vests, Orban, and the recent gains of the AFD in East Germany. The ruling class doesn’t even try to understand. Ursala von der Leyen has appointed a rabid anti-Brexiteer to handle Brexit negotiations. And she also announced that she planned to appoint equal numbers of women to EU posts. Nothing will prevent these idiots from trying to create their own utopia.
The minority rich plus new immigrants favor Remain in the EU; plus many the English have dominated, like the Scots. The normal English want to Leave.
My guess is that there won’t be Brexit by the end of October, but there will be new elections around that time. Boris will NOT delay, might be in an impeachment trial. Boris will do (almost?) anything to Leave, including an ok but poor EU deal (that I don’t think the EU will propose).
The Brexit Party (led by N. Farage) said they would agree not have candidates in Tory districts, so as to avoid splitting the Leave vote in those districts — most Remainers believe they would lose the next election. Another Very Interesting week in British democracy. The elites vs the normals, thru votes and institution maneuvers.
I could never understand why a nation that would fight off control by continental countries for well over a thousand years would then sign herself over to control by unelected European bureaucrats.
because the treaty was supposed to be an economic one, not what it really was
it was sold as an economic idea, open borders, free trade, but was really a supra national constitution…
part of the problem is that people dont believe the bad enough to actually not step in it…
i posted old information but it was probably ignored by most, as it was how the EU was really a european soviet, with a lot of similar controls (just as our internal passports have been activated now)..
there is a lot on it… but you have to read the treaties..
then you will realize that they were saying one thing, denying the obvious, then the obvious became real and incrementalism was tightening till people woke up
and that was the big start of it.. an economic treaty like NAFTA… which was why all the worry of a north american union, etc… and open borders and so on… the concept on the left was to create soviet blocks…
and it evolved..
Initially known as the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (or EEC Treaty in short), its name has been retrospectively amended on several occasions since 1957. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 removed the word “economic” from the Treaty of Rome’s official title and, in 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon renamed it the “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”.
The Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) is an international agreement that amends the two treaties which form the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU).
silly people dont know enough about a soviet system… ie XI is a figure head of the supreme soviet and the politburo.. the councils..
Prominent changes included the move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in at least 45 policy areas in the Council of Ministers, a change in calculating such a majority to a new double majority, a more powerful European Parliament forming a bicameral legislature alongside the Council of Ministers under the ordinary legislative procedure, a consolidated legal personality for the EU and the creation of a long-term President of the European Council and a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Treaty also made the Union’s bill of rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, legally binding. The Treaty for the first time gave member states the explicit legal right to leave the EU, and established a procedure by which to do so.
The stated aim of the treaty was to “complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam [1997] and by the Treaty of Nice [2001] with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action”
All interesting points but I think there is something else at work here to consider:
Between settlement/immigration to the Colonies/USA and the loss of the best and bravest in two horrific world wars, those countries lost a lot of spine.
In my opinion and experience, one thing that sets the US apart, and drives much of Europe nuts is our seeming arrogance. As much as I hate to admit it, there’s something to that. But the flip side is, I believe many Europeans know, consciously or unconsciously, that the majority, though not all, of the people who are left are the descendants of those who bent the knee and remained subjects*. Or didn’t charge off to defend the nation from fascism and communism.
I’ve had beers with Dutch and Englishmen. And the subject first came up in the Netherlands when a guy from Northern Ireland accused a Dutch guy of feeling insecure because “All their spines and backbones went to America.” After much argument, the Dutch guy relented and admitted there was something to that. And I was shocked at the agreement from others.
*I’m not sure where to place the French and their revolution there. I think the Reign of Terror and Napolean f$%ked their national psyche up right good.
That’s because the Left used the democratic referendum to secure it’s power. Now that they have it they no longer care about or need the democratic referendum.
The EU Parliament is a Rubber Stamp for the Commission.
Sovereignty is so very icky.
“I could never understand why a nation that would fight off control by continental countries for well over a thousand years would then sign herself over to control by unelected European bureaucrats.” Susanamantha
After WWII, Western Europe’s intelligentsia fully embraced the explanatory theory of “Trans-nationalism”, which posits that nationalism itself is the primary cause of wars. Acceptance of that theory percolated into the media and educational system and has been virtually unchallenged in Western Europe since the 60s.
A nation that had fought off control by continental countries for well over a thousand years came to see control by unelected European bureaucrats as saviors… from themselves.
But as regulatory control has ‘evolved’ into areas having nothing to do with nationalism, there has been a growing perception that EU bureaucrats adhere to a ‘global vision’ and have a deeply entrenched attitude that the citizens of Europe should ‘know their place’ and listen attentively to and obey their betters.
neo: You could have used this YouTube from a “West Wing” scene:
“The West Wing: He remains an English man”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ygs-oIomyM
In “The West Wing” alternate universe, Ainsley Hayes, an attractive blonde Republican pundit based on Ann Coulter, has been hired by President Bartlett (Martin Sheen) because she beat Sam Seaborn (Rob Lowe) like a gong on a talking heads show. She gets a crummy office in the basement, but because noblesse oblige and the Bartlett team is such a cuddly crew, they give her a big welcome the first time she enters her office and play Gilbert & Sullivan for her. A real Doonesbury moment.
I mention this stuff because this is who Democrats think they are — people who play hard but fair and have a liberal appreciation for everyone, whatever race, creed or political affiliation. It’s sad how badly we have disappointed them.
Still, it’s a hoot to imagine Ann Coulter hired by the Clinton or Obama administrations.
One wonders how the Remainers think this is going to work. The British political system is going to be realigned as pro-EU v. Brexit. If a rogue Parliament or some judges manage to frustrate Brexit in the short term, it is not going to make the E.U. party more popular. Probably the opposite. That is if they win.
Once they lose an election, Brexit is right back on the table. At that point it will only be bureaucrats and lawyers holding back Brexit. So will that mean the end of the Parliamentary supremacy Remainers claim to champion today? It will have vanished like the snows of yesteryear, along with the last pretense to democratic legitimacy.
Welcome back, Oblio!
Europe is just as tribal as Africa, and historically just as bloody. Dreams of unity are but dreams. Greece-Germany-Scotland, etcetera…. they have nothing in common.
Much like NY-AL-IA-AK. The center was lost decades ago. Time to disband the union peacefully or CW2 will happen, and the bloodshed will make CW 1.0 a mild affair.
Europe is just as tribal as Africa, and historically just as bloody.
parker: A Brit friend once told me that the real, original, albeit unspoken, purpose of the EU was to prevent Germany from running amok on the Continent again.
And Europe seems to be importing Africa as fast as possible. Excellent, that way they can update Europe on tribal blood.
Between settlement/immigration to the Colonies/USA and the loss of the best and bravest in two horrific world wars, those countries lost a lot of spine.
Good observation. When I visited Ireland in the late 70s, I did not find the Irish that friendly. An Irish friend explained. “They know the cream left.”
The younger governing class of England was killed off in WWI. What is left are the cowards who stayed out of the fighting and their descendants. The same reason pheasants in South Dakota don’t fly anymore. The flyers got shot (or hit by cars).
Much the same of true of Germans. And French, for that matter. 600,000 died in Russia in 1812.
On an earlier thread I incorrectly said that the U.K. had not signed on to the Maastricht Treaty. Having read some of Neo’s Claremont link, I see the U.K. signed it but also rejected parts of it.
Here is a summary of the Maastricht Treaty and how the U.K. was only a partial signatory
“opted out of these … plans” Which are those? Obviously the Euro dollar.
“you will realize that they were saying one thing, denying the obvious, then the obvious became real and incrementalism was tightening till people woke up” – Artfldgr
Well said.
Applies lots of places.
These observations by Caldwell are trenchant to the US situation as well, especially if you equate EU supremacy with the American administrative bureaucracy. People elsewhere have drawn overt parallels with things like NAFTA; I would add Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran.
Other examples are left as an exercise for the reader.
Although I think he should have said either (a) “global crony capitalism,” which is not free market capitalism at all (and barrier-free import/export markets are also not free markets in the proper meaning); or (b) “global socialism” with the EU Commission etc. playing the part of the Soviet Central Committee.
That takes care of this comment on a previous post of Neo’s:
Manju on September 10, 2019 at 12:26 am said:
“Parliament is supreme. Referendums are non-binding.
Representatives who opposed Brexit have no obligation to vote for it because of the referendum…”
Maybe the Representatives don’t have that obligation, but the foot-dragging Conservatives in Government are the entities actually blocking Brexit, and they DID have an obligation, by their own words.
Although they seem to have been channeling the “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” style of promises.
That sounds rather familiar.
Follow the money, and power, and you can always find the real agenda.
“Quangos” I had to look up: QUAsi-autonomous Non-Governmental Organizations.
“Designs” is, I suspect, similar to the way environmental groups “sue” the EPA, which rolls over and concedes the case, then writes the regs the enviros want.
Or people trawl bakers and florists until they find one they can sue for discrimination.
So, Britain was moving toward taking all legistlative disputes to the judiciary to settle, instead of having the people’s (alleged) representatives work things out.
That worked out so well here.
I’m still puzzling over how they “sold” any of these reforms to the country, or even to Parliament itself. Anybody know how that went down?
It all sounds … familiar.
I suspect, similar to the way environmental groups “sue” the EPA, which rolls over and concedes the case, then writes the regs the enviros want.
Or people trawl bakers and florists until they find one they can sue for discrimination.
Exactly. I served on the planning commission of the small city where I lived. The triangle was state legislators, “public interest” lawyers, and real estate developers. The lawyers would sue the city alleging inadequate “affordable housing.” The developers funded them and the state legislature. The legislature kept upping the amount of “affordable housing”( meaning high density in the suburb) and the developers built the projects that the local zoning laws had prevented.
The same applies to any government.
Bingo AesopFan,
Quangos and “[governance] based on post-Civil Rights Act American law and on the litigative ethos of the American bar.”
Daniel Hannan wrote extensively on quangos in his “The New Road to Serfdom: …” book.
Look at the connection to today’s US news. Some twit of a federal judge in SF, CA put a nationwide stay of Trump asylum rule making (because of the civil rights of aliens don’t ya know) and the SCOTUS agreed to take it up quickly.
Some (Prof. John Yoo) were hopeful that the SCOTUS would take to opportunity to significantly limit the scope of federal judge actions. So the right and Trump supporters celebrated when the stay was undone, but… All that CJ Roberts did was temporarily undo the stay pending a judicial decision. Zero limitations on judicial scope. Sigh.
From Caldwell:
“And while such borders might present new challenges after Brexit, there were proven solutions: non-E.U. Switzerland, for example, keeps its borders, travel, and trade open with four major E.U. countries.”
Yes, but the Swiss just lost most of their famous and largely violence-free gun ownership rights because the bureaucrats in Brussels said so, and because the wealthy stock-owning Swiss elites sold their citizens down the river. The threat? Ban guns or lose those Schengen border and trade rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland#EU_firearm_ban
I learned about Quangos from the prescient political British comedy shows, “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister,” in the 1980s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_for_the_Boys
Back then, before the EU and the British Civil Service — their version of the Swamp — had metasticized, one could laugh at the absurdities and foolishness.
These days, not so funny. But still entertaining and, as I say, prescient. I believe participants here would enjoy it. It’s free on Amazon Prime these days.
Plus the show has the brilliant Sir Nigel Hawthorne playing the Civil Service snake with sly relish!
We wonder how the Brits got sold on this, then look to ourselves and wonder how we signed on to some of the nonsense we accepted. I think the concept of “sold,” even as a metaphor, is where we go wrong. Most political ideas are not presented as what they are – many politicians and bureaucrats don’t want us to think about that too directly – but in terms of what we are supposedly avoiding. Or more commonly, in terms of what terrible people those folks opposed to this are, and you wouldn’t want to be like them, would you?
From the original coal and steel agreement on, European cooperation was sold as a way of competing with the US, which even the English has some prejudice against (especially the elites); and upon avoidance of another world war, which economic cooperation was supposed to somehow eliminate. At each step, it was “sold” more in the negative than in the positive. Compare it to selling insurance, or deodorant, or home security systems rather than selling a car or a food. Or like threatening spam messages that you are being sued or your account has been hacked. That’s how the Brits got talked into this, a little at a time, and how it is still being portrayed now. If we leave the EU, there will be a plague o’er all the earth!
I was looking for something on “quangos” and while I didn’t find a bite sized piece, I found this instead, which is only a little off topic.
From Hannan’s “The New Road to Serfdom:” (2010)
huxley on September 11, 2019 at 9:20 pm said:
In “The West Wing” alternate universe, …
… this is who Democrats think they are — people who play hard but fair and have a liberal appreciation for everyone, whatever race, creed or political affiliation. It’s sad how badly we have disappointed them.
* * *
I watched some of the “West Wing” later seasons, and enjoyed the politics and witty persiflage (although some of the main characters were, IMHO, kind of creepy instead of sympathetic protagonists).
One episode, however, encapsulated for me at the time how totally out of touch the Dems were with the rest of America. Two years before, Bush fils had won the real election, with a supposed major contribution from what we used to call the “moral majority”*; the Dem carried their fake one.**
“The episode opens late at night on the day before election day. Josh finally relaxes long enough to see various campaign staff hooking up, and he and Donna sleep together – twice.” – Wikipedia
The couples are hetero and same-sex, have been inviting everyone into their bedrooms all year, and no one on (or off) screen bats an eye.
I recalled that episode & its public reception on several later occasions: when the Democrats tried to throw dirt at McCain (retracted, because untrue), threw everything BUT that at Romney, and then staggered around clutching their pearls when Trump entered the race.
The only use the Democratic Party leadership has for moral values is beating conservatives over the head with them; that’s one reason I started being sceptical of their other public stances, such as fairness and tolerance.
I’ve moved on from sceptical to confirmed: they got so deep into hypocrisy they came out the other side, and now can’t even recognize how warped their view is.
* * *
*My recollection of the 2004 election is from the publication of the exit polls, which were later questioned in Public Opinion Quarterly, but I never saw any debunking at the time.
I consider myself less than persuaded by this attempt to shove moral values out of the equation.
https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/69/5/744/1920108
**I read later that the writers had intended the Republican to win, so they could spend a season poking spears at him, but in the end couldn’t stomach it, explaining that they were changing the outcome out of respect to the sudden death of the long-time actor who was “running” as Dem VP — both reasons probably contributed to the decision.
The question became moot anyway, as that was the final season and the last episodes were all denoument.
https://25yearslatersite.com/2018/11/01/art-of-the-finale-the-west-wing-tomorrow/
TommyJay: the Swiss gun grab may not be as bad as it looks.
From the same Wiki article:
The bit about registering weapons is bad, but the Swiss have always known who has guns at home, since that includes just about everybody.
I suspect there will be a massive increase in shooting club memberships and gun collections. There would be in America. And how hard is it to go shooting once a year?
Another good reason Great Britain would be well out of the EU, assuming their own government will grow a spine on gun rights.
Assistant Village Idiot on September 12, 2019 at 2:36 pm said:
We wonder how the Brits got sold on this, then look to ourselves and wonder how we signed on to some of the nonsense we accepted. I think the concept of “sold,” even as a metaphor, is where we go wrong. Most political ideas are not presented as what they are —
* * *
Perhaps I should have clarified “sold, as in snake oil” — if politicians had to tell the unspun & unvarnished truth about what they were proposing, we would have a far different world.
TommyJay on September 12, 2019 at 2:54 pm said:
I was looking for something on “quangos” and while I didn’t find a bite sized piece, I found this instead, which is only a little off topic.
From Hannan’s “The New Road to Serfdom:” (2010)
* * *
Great article; I hadn’t seen it before.
Thanks.
“The US Constitution concerns itself with broad principles, such as the balance between state and federal authorities. The EU Constitution busies itself with such details as, space exploration, the rights of disabled people, and the status of asylum seekers.”
The urge to legislate everything at the primal level is always with us. See this objection to the Declaration of Independence from “1776” the musical:
“Mr. Jefferson, nowhere do you mention deep sea fishing rights.”
“the chief author of the EU Constitution, former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing. …told delegates: “This is Europe’s Philadelphia moment.” and went on to compare himself to Thomas Jefferson — inaccurately as well as immodestly, since Jefferson wasn’t present when the US Constitution was drafted; he was, as d’Estaing might have been expected to be aware, the US ambassador to Paris.”
LOL – I suspect he was thinking of the Declaration; people seem to get that confused with the Constitution quite often.
Looking back at my quotes from Caldwell, this seems to be a good thread for comparisons.
Of course, Jefferson & Madison bear absolutely no resemblance to d’Estaing & the Remainers, except in their own minds.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/the_best_speech_on_brexit__from_a_shocking_source.html
Brilliantly delivered snark, as only the German language can do it.
However, keeping in mind that one of the ostensible reasons for the EU was to tamp down German aggression, inquiring tin-foil-hatters want to know if the AfD has an ulterior motive for breaking up the EU?
I don’t have a brief either way, but it has to be considered.
While I was reading Dalrymple on the 9/11 & NYT post:
https://www.city-journal.org/brexit-suspension-of-parliament
Dalrymple deserves reading in full, but this is the bottom line:
AesopFan on September 12, 2019 at 5:12 pm
Good catch on the part I missed. I see that the Schengen exemption for “target shooters” is perhaps a type of training requirement. Shoot at least once a year to maintain proficiency.
The other question is whether the Swiss can depend on these exemptions indefinitely into the future.
AesopFan: When John Spencer, the actor who played Leo McGarry on “West Wing,” died, he was mentioned in the Sunday Mass prayers at the Episcopalian Church I attended. That show and those characters meant a lot to Democrats in the 2000s.
I would note that the Republican candidate for President in the show was played somewhat sympathetically by Alan Alda. He was a strong conservative, but a respectable opponent — hard, but fair.
I don’t think Democrats and Hollywood are going to find their way back to that level of collegiality for a generation. And they see that as our fault.
When does a nation start? Neo gives us some dates for various political organizations, but it is appropriate instead to go even further back, and to think of when and how distinct peoples were formed.
A starting point for the major European nations today could be found by looking at the fifth century AD, with the Migration Period and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Soon enough, we see the Anglo-Saxons taking over Roman Britain, and the Franks under Clovis I (from which the name Louis is derived) taking over Roman Gaul.
Is the EU a distant reflection of the Roman Empire, coming about because of desires for unity, prosperity, and security? And after all, an empire is a political organization of multiple nations.